[Orion27]

At a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer in San Francisco Senator Hillary Clinton said quote

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Scary. Yes Hillary, we trust you know what the common good is.

[itai195]

Who does know?

[Orion27]

Originally posted by itai195:
Who does know?

Clinton and Boxer obviously think they do. But I'm assuming the "we" meant Democrats.

[BRussell]

Republicans seem to spend more than Democrats. So do Republicans know what the common good is even better than Democrats?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Orion27:
At a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer in San Francisco Senator Hillary Clinton said quote

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Scary. Yes Hillary, we trust you know what the common good is.

Dang, I was on my way to post about this, but you beat me to it.

And yes, Billary never ceases to amaze, does she? Not much to argue about her comment since she so plainly stated it: she wants to deny me *my* money because she thinks someone else needs it more.

Billary, you poor, poor soul...



I'd like to see her try and make that "speech" here in good ol' Texas.

Maury

[BRussell]

I really don't get it. Isn't this the whole premise behind taxation? You give some of your money to the common good? Individuals can't build highways with their money. They certainly can't fight the war on terror individually. And how are we supposed to fund corporations moving jobs overseas unless we have taxation? Sheesh.

[itai195]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I really don't get it. Isn't this the whole premise behind taxation? You give some of your money to the common good? Individuals can't build highways with their money. They certainly can't fight the war on terror individually. And how are we supposed to fund corporations moving jobs overseas unless we have taxation? Sheesh.

Apparently not in good ol'Texas, unless you're talking about the 1 in 5 Texas farms that receive government subsidies I guess.

[Millennium]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BRussell:
I really don't get it. Isn't this the whole premise behind taxation? You give some of your money to the common good?[/qujote]
No, the premise behind taxation is that you give your money to the government to do as it sees fit. Nowadays, they often couch this in terms of "the common good", as if they had any more clue what that might be as anyone else, but this wasn't always the case. At least back then they were more honest about it.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I really don't get it. Isn't this the whole premise behind taxation? You give some of your money to the common good? Individuals can't build highways with their money. They certainly can't fight the war on terror individually. And how are we supposed to fund corporations moving jobs overseas unless we have taxation? Sheesh.

Taxation is for the common good. But common good for Democrats means more welfare, food stamps, and other forms of entitlements which by their very nature discriminate against the very taxpayers paying into the funds.

Everyone benefits from a highway but only one person benefits from the receipt of food stamps or a welfare check.

[BRussell]

Almost half of federal spending is for old people (Social Security/Medicare), which of course Republicans expanded. Another fourth is military, which Republicans have expanded. There's not that much left. Bush and the Republicans have increased spending more than any other recent president. Certainly more than Democratic presidents. So what's this about Democrats and taxes and spending?

And of course Big George is dramatically increasing our spending on servicing the debt. His tax cuts alone have increased government spending due to the little problem of paying our debts. That's right, tax cuts increase gov't spending. Woohoo! Four more years!

[itai195]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Everyone benefits from a highway but only one person benefits from the receipt of food stamps or a welfare check.

I'd think almost everyone would benefit from knowing society provides a safety net should they fall on hard times. BTW, the main people who directly benefit from highways are those with cars

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Almost half of federal spending is for old people (Social Security/Medicare), which of course Republicans expanded. Another fourth is military, which Republicans have expanded.

For the sake of completeness, you've missed one: another 15% is for interest on the national debt, which -once again- Republicans have expanded.

At the same time, that "nearly half" you mention is for Social Security alone; Medicare doesn't even begin to count until after that. After Social Security, military spending, and interest on the national debt, everything else, including Medicare, fits into that last 10% or so. Depressing, isn't it?

This said, while you've raised valid points you have not even begun to tell the whole story. Do kindly mention the Social Security and Medicare stuff done by a certain recent Democrat President. For that matter look at what our dear Sen. Clinton has tried to do with Medicare. And let's not forget that even if Bush's tax cuts are large, they're by no means the only large tax cuts made by recent administrations.

Also, the bit about "tax cuts increase government spending" is ridiculous; there is no causative link. Increases in government spending increase government spending, and Bush's cronies aside, that has in fact long been the province of the Democrats. Bush has taken up the torch in recent years, but there has been no flip-flop; the Democrats' platform is just as fiscally irresponsible as it always was. Bush is worse, but that means surprisingly little; it's like saying that the tortures at Abu Ghraib are "OK" just because Saddam did even worse things to Iraqi prisoners during his regime.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'd think almost everyone would benefit from knowing society provides a safety net should they fall on hard times. BTW, the main people who directly benefit from highways are those with cars

Bassackwards. I cannot demand payment of my taxes in the form of food stamps, medicare, free housing, or a Social Securiy check. I must meet some requirement prior to getting back a single penny. In fact it's conceivable I could never collect back anything I put into the pot. Therefore, it's a scam.

I can, however, take advantage of the gasoline tax by starting up my car and taking a ride 24/7/365.2459674. Or I could get into my neighbor's car, the public bus, etc.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Millennium:
For the sake of completeness, you've missed one: another 15% is for interest on the national debt, which -once again- Republicans have expanded.

At the same time, that "nearly half" you mention is for Social Security alone; Medicare doesn't even begin to count until after that. After Social Security, military spending, and interest on the national debt, everything else, including Medicare, fits into that last 10% or so. Depressing, isn't it?

This said, while you've raised valid points you have not even begun to tell the whole story. Do kindly mention the Social Security and Medicare stuff done by a certain recent Democrat President. For that matter look at what our dear Sen. Clinton has tried to do with Medicare. And let's not forget that even if Bush's tax cuts are large, they're by no means the only large tax cuts made by recent administrations.

Also, the bit about "tax cuts increase government spending" is ridiculous; there is no causative link. Increases in government spending increase government spending, and Bush's cronies aside, that has in fact long been the province of the Democrats. Bush has taken up the torch in recent years, but there has been no flip-flop; the Democrats' platform is just as fiscally irresponsible as it always was. Bush is worse, but that means surprisingly little; it's like saying that the tortures at Abu Ghraib are "OK" just because Saddam did even worse things to Iraqi prisoners during his regime.

They seem to have forgotten where all the Great Society feel-good entitlement programs originated.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Bassackwards. I cannot demand payment of my taxes in the form of food stamps, medicare, free housing, or a Social Securiy check. I must meet some requirement prior to getting back a single penny. In fact it's conceivable I could never collect back anything I put into the pot.

Goodness gracious. Farmers also have to satisfy requirements for government subsidies, can we slash those programs yet? I'll never get such a subsidy, hence it's a scam, hence it should be done away with.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by itai195:
Goodness gracious. Farmers also have to satisfy requirements for government subsidies, can we slash those programs yet? I'll never get such a subsidy, hence it's a scam, hence it should be done away with.

By all means all forms of subsidies need to be eliminated. But farm subsidies don't even come close to what we waste on entitlement programs.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
For the sake of completeness, you've missed one: another 15% is for interest on the national debt, which -once again- Republicans have expanded.

If you hadn't clipped off half my post, you would have seen that I did mention that.

At the same time, that "nearly half" you mention is for Social Security alone; Medicare doesn't even begin to count until after that. After Social Security, military spending, and interest on the national debt, everything else, including Medicare, fits into that last 10% or so. Depressing, isn't it?

I was including Social Security and Medicare in that.

This said, while you've raised valid points you have not even begun to tell the whole story. Do kindly mention the Social Security and Medicare stuff done by a certain recent Democrat President. For that matter look at what our dear Sen. Clinton has tried to do with Medicare. And let's not forget that even if Bush's tax cuts are large, they're by no means the only large tax cuts made by recent administrations.

What did a recent Democratic president do with medicare? Are you talking about Clinton? He cut it and cut it and cut it. And what did he do with Social Security? He taxed it. When you mention Sen. Clinton, do you mean her proposed health plan in 1994?

Also, the bit about "tax cuts increase government spending" is ridiculous; there is no causative link. Increases in government spending increase government spending, and Bush's cronies aside, that has in fact long been the province of the Democrats. Bush has taken up the torch in recent years, but there has been no flip-flop; the Democrats' platform is just as fiscally irresponsible as it always was. Bush is worse, but that means surprisingly little; it's like saying that the tortures at Abu Ghraib are "OK" just because Saddam did even worse things to Iraqi prisoners during his regime.

But you just said above that Republicans expanded the interest payments on the national debt. That's what I'm talking about when I say that tax cuts increase spending.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
By all means all forms of subsidies need to be eliminated. But farm subsidies don't even come close to what we waste on entitlement programs.

Well at least you're consistent

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Taxation is for the common good. But common good for Democrats means more welfare, food stamps, and other forms of entitlements which by their very nature discriminate against the very taxpayers paying into the funds.

Everyone benefits from a highway but only one person benefits from the receipt of food stamps or a welfare check.

Are you a bigot? Not accusing, just wondering...

God help you if things turn upside down in your life.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Are you a bigot? Not accusing, just wondering...

God help you if things turn upside down in your life.

Bigot? No, I don't believe the government's job is to collect money from one individual to hand over to another individual while denying the first individual the right to get his or her money back.

For people who aren't making it in life we have what's called charity.

I simply don't trust politicians to effectively spend what the government collects just for entitlements. I do not believe the government can "invest" my money better than I can. I do not believe I would be better off with the government taking care of me in my old age versus a private enterprise or a charity for that matter.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Taxation is for the common good. But common good for Democrats means more welfare, food stamps, and other forms of entitlements which by their very nature discriminate against the very taxpayers paying into the funds.

Everyone benefits from a highway but only one person benefits from the receipt of food stamps or a welfare check.

Well, only those with cars benefit from a highway directly, but if you want to talk about indirectly then yes, we all benefit. Much of our goods we use/consume travel across the highway system in this country

In the same vein, a welfare check supports just one person directly but indirectly it supports a spouse or children of the recipient. More importantly, if someone is on welfare they are less likely to be on the street comitting a crime--I said LESS likely. So, that can effect us all if our streets are safer and less crime is taking place.

And if you don't want your tax money going to welfare programs, think abut where it would go if there was no welfare. Probably into the law enforcement system as we would be living in savage social climate with our poorest citizens forced to support themselves any way they could. Welcome to the Middle Ages my friend.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Bigot? No, I don't believe the government's job is to collect money from one individual to hand over to another individual while denying the first individual the right to get his or her money back.

For people who aren't making it in life we have what's called charity.

I simply don't trust politicians to effectively spend what the government collects just for entitlements. I do not believe the government can "invest" my money better than I can. I do not believe I would be better off with the government taking care of me in my old age versus a private enterprise or a charity for that matter.

So, what do you think our government *is* responsible for then?

As for a private enterprise taking care of you in your old age, we have that now. You got any grandparent or family friends who are financially secure but too sick/frail to take care of themselves? What do they do, move into a care facility and sign over ALL their financial worth--usally in the form of a home and retirement funds/personal savings--to the care facility. You would be comfortable with that?

[Zimphire]

At least she admits she is a socialist thief.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
In the same vein, a welfare check supports just one person directly but indirectly it supports a spouse or children of the recipient.

My point being that I cannot get a welfare check or food stamps or even Social Security despite paying into those funds. That's how it's wrong.

Highways, on the other hand, are generally paid for by those who use them through a use tax (gasoline tax).

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, what do you think our government *is* responsible for then?

Government isn't supposed to forcibily take from one person to give to another without due process. There's due process when the government wants to take your property to benefit the public good but there's no due process when you are forced to pay into schemes from which you may never get back what you paid into.

Government isn't supposed to be in the charity business either.

As for a private enterprise taking care of you in your old age, we have that now. You got any grandparent or family friends who are financially secure but too sick/frail to take care of themselves? What do they do, move into a care facility and sign over ALL their financial worth--usally in the form of a home and retirement funds/personal savings--to the care facility. You would be comfortable with that?

Whatever happened to families taking care of their own instead of burdening the rest of us with their care?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
At least she admits she is a socialist thief.

AAAHHHAHahahahaHAAh.

Clueless.

"Socialist"

Don't worry: You just keep spouting it, I'll keep calling it.

-s*

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, what do you think our government *is* responsible for then?

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Government isn't supposed to forcibily take from one person to give to another without due process. There's due process when the government wants to take your property to benefit the public good but there's no due process when you are forced to pay into schemes from which you may never get back what you paid into.

Government isn't supposed to be in the charity business either.

You didn't answer my question.

What do YOU think government "is" responsible for?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
My point being that I cannot get a welfare check or food stamps or even Social Security despite paying into those funds. That's how it's wrong.

Highways, on the other hand, are generally paid for by those who use them through a use tax (gasoline tax).

So, you feel you should be paying for only those things you can tangibly, directly benefit from?

You do realize that highways are funded by more than just gasoline use taxes, don't you? So how about people without cars? Obviously they are not paying a gasoline use tax but they still contribute to the creation and maintenance of highways thorugh state and federal taxes. Would you be in favor of allowing them NOT to contribute to the highway system, by providing deductions on their state and/or federal income taxes, since they don't directly benefit from it?

[dcmacdaddy]

DP

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, you feel you should be paying for only those things you can tangibly, directly benefit from?

You do realize that highways are funded by more than just gasoline use taxes, don't you? So how about people without cars? Obviously they are not paying a gasoline use tax but they still contribute to the creation and maintenance of highways thorugh state and federal taxes. Would you be in favor of allowing them NOT to contribute to the highway system, by providing deductions on their state and/or federal income taxes, since they don't directly benefit from it?

I suppose if you could show me a person that never goes to the grocery store, never buys anything commercially, or perhaps doens't have a single family member who uses said highways then you might have someone who never benefits from the highway system.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:

You didn't answer my question.

What do YOU think government "is" responsible for?

Government is supposed to maintain law and order and to provide a defense against foreign enemies. Government should pass laws to protect consumers against unsafe products or provide a safe working environment for workers, for example.

If a dollar is collected from me then I should get a direct dollar benefit.

If a dollar was taken from me to build a highway and I was legally prevented from using that highway for no good reason then I would be just as upset.

Having money stolen from me to give to someone else isn't a benefit of government. It's no different than some complete stranger mugging me randomly to give money to another person simply because some liberal thinks it's a good idea.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Government isn't supposed to be in the charity business either.

Whatever happened to families taking care of their own instead of burdening the rest of us with their care?

Maury

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
AAAHHHAHahahahaHAAh.

Clueless.

"Socialist"

Don't worry: You just keep spouting it, I'll keep calling it.

-s*

This is on the brink of socialism Spheric. Laugh or not. Hillary has a lot of socialist ideals.

Stealing from the "rich", and giving to the "poor" is indeed a socialist ideal.

You can laugh till your blue in the face. As a matter of fact, please do.

[DBursey]

Good to see that the me first brand of ruggedly selfish individualism remains strong in Elephantia.

Tell me, how do you support that massive military of yours? Charitable donations? Chocolate-covered almond drives?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Good to see that me first brand of ruggedly selfish individualism remains strong in Elephant Land.

BZZZZZZZZT I 100% approve of giving money on your OWN FREE WILL. I do, my parents do, my grandparents did.

I think helping out those in need is the best thing one can do. I myself take 2 to 3 handicapped people (Mostly blind) to the grocery store a week. Most of the time the bill comes over for what they have. I usually pay the extra. And I am hardly rich.

So sorry if you don't see me shedding crocodile tears while your narrow minded view of the Right sheds through.

I don't however think their should be a government FORCED Charity. Free will.

Tell me, how do you support that massive military of yours? Charitable donations? Chocolate-covered almond drives?

People paying to protect themselves. That is all that is.

BTW your sig is too large. You must make it smaller so everyone can enjoy sigs.

[DBursey]

So sorry if you don't see me shedding crocodile tears while your narrow minded view of the Right sheds through.

Why do you judge me as narrow-minded? It would seem that citizens of an affluent liberal democracy who object on ideological grounds to paying their fair share of taxes into the community pot, and who demonstrate a resounding lack of comprehension as to the neccessity of said taxes, would likelier be found on the short end of the broad-mindedness scale.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Why do you judge me as narrow-minded? It would seem that citizens of an affluent liberal democracy who object on ideological grounds to paying their fair share of taxes into the community pot, and who demonstrate a resounding lack of comprehension as to the neccessity of said taxes, would likelier be found on the short end of the broad-mindedness scale.

Just what is a fair share? My god man, every time we turn around there are new fees and taxes on the local and state level. I think 50 cents on the dollar is excessive. Apparently
Clinton and here gang do not.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Why do you judge me as narrow-minded?

Maybe it was this quote

Good to see that the me first brand of ruggedly selfish individualism remains strong in Elephantia.

When you have no clue of what I believe in or do. But now you do. And hopefully you feel a bit silly for making that comment.

It would seem that citizens of an affluent liberal democracy who object on ideological grounds to paying their fair share of taxes into the community pot, and who demonstrate a resounding lack of comprehension as to the neccessity of said taxes, would likelier be found on the short end of the broad-mindedness scale.

Hilary doesn't want you to pay your fair share. She wants to take MORE. MORE because you have done well in this world. That is punishing the people that have done well for themselves to prop up the people that have less, without giving any choice in the matter. She is trying to play a modern day Robin Hood. Which is silly.

Giving on your own free will. That is where it's at. Most rich do anyhow.

[DBursey]

I can't claim to be familiar with your 50 cents to the dollar assertion. I do know that the United States has the lowest overall rates of taxation of any large western democracy, with a top marginal taxation rate of 35 percent.

Maximum Marginal Tax Rates on Individual Income by Country

... and for a breakdown of corporate & individual income taxes and VAT worldwide (updated June 2004):

Tax Rates Around the World

Zimphire, the comment on which you quoted me wasn't directed at you personally, but to a broader 'me first' constituency that regularly makes its voice heard. Still, it was brash of me, and I apologise to any who may have been offended.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by DBursey:
[B]I can't claim to be familiar with your 50 cents to the dollar assertion. I do know that the United States has the lowest overall rates of taxation of any large western democracy, with a top marginal taxation rate of 35 percent.

That's because you only focus on direct income taxes. What about state, local, and other hidden taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc?

... but to a broader 'me first' constituency that regularly makes its voice heard....

Well, it is *I* who is doing the earning here, not the government.

Whatever happened to voluntary contributions to charity instead of being forced by threat of prison terms to do such?

[DBursey]

I don't know. Can you provide a list of countries / constituencies that have had experience with a purely voluntary system of taxation?

With the exception of medicare, the other levels of taxation you mention are common to Canada and other western countries.

Experience would also suggest that falling levels of taxation are usually compensated for by rising user fees, tolls and the like.

[Spliffdaddy]

There weren't starved dead bodies lining the streets for 150 years before welfare.

[Spliffdaddy]

Being poor in America really sucks.

It means you can't have the in-dash touchpanel navigation system or sliding glass moonroof in your Expedition.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Can you provide a list of countries / constituencies that have had experience with a purely voluntary system of taxation?

I didn't state such a thing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I suppose if you could show me a person that never goes to the grocery store, never buys anything commercially, or perhaps doens't have a single family member who uses said highways then you might have someone who never benefits from the highway system.

Ahh, but that was my point in my previous reply to your post about the example of the highway system (see here). So, you agree that there ARE individuals who indirectly benefit from the highway system even if they do not have access to a car to directly take benefit from a highway.

Well, my point in the above thread is that there are those who can indirectly benefit from when other's receive welfare even if they do not directly benefit from welfare themselves.

So, is your point that indirectly benefiting from the highway system is OK but indirectly benefiting from the welfare system is not?
Or, do you think it is not possible at all to have indirect benefits for others from a welfare support system?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Ahh, but that was my point in my previous reply to your post about the example of the highway system (see here). So, you agree that there ARE individuals who indirectly benefit from the highway system even if they do not have access to a car to directly take benefit from a highway.

Well, my point in the above thread is that there are those who can indirectly benefit from when other's receive welfare even if they do not directly benefit from welfare themselves.

So, is your point that indirectly benefiting from the highway system is OK but indirectly benefiting from the welfare system is not?
Or, do you think it is not possible at all to have indirect benefits for others from a welfare support system?

I believe there are no benefits whatsoever to socialized welfare systems so trying to make the argument comparing welfare to highways isn't going to work.

Like I stated, I pay taxes on the gasoline I buy, therefore, I am entitled to use the highways as a I please. If I don't buy gasoline then my burden of highways taxes drops significantly.

I cannot, however, collect any return on the money I am forced to contribute with regards to social welfare nor do I have the option of not participating in the social welfare schemes in the first place.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I cannot, however, collect any return on the money I am forced to contribute with regards to social welfare nor do I have the option of not participating in the social welfare schemes in the first place.

You wouldn't have any of your money if it weren't for the rights and privileges society gave you in the first place.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Being poor in America really sucks.

It means you can't have the in-dash touchpanel navigation system or sliding glass moonroof in your Expedition.

Yeah most of the "poor" I know that are getting state assistance live better than I do.

[DBursey]

Anecdotal. I doubt the genuinely poor are as well off as some are wont to allude here.

From Stats on Poverty in America:

• The average poverty threshold for a family of three: $13,003 in annual income
• Proportion of Americans living below the poverty level: 12.7 percent (34.5 million people)
• Percentage and number of poor children: 18.9 percent (13.5 million)

Comprising child poverty:

• Children under age 6 living in families with a female householder and no husband present: 54.8 percent
• Children under age 6 in married-couple families: 10.1 percent

[Zimphire]

You know, they have the ability to get help.

I know many people that aren't doing great, and have every chance to go get help. But that requires actually getting off their butt and standing in a line, or making any kind of effort.

It's disgusting sometimes. Some people would rather wallow in filth because it takes less effort.

I live in WV, one of the poorest states in this country. I am right in the middle of it.