Class War Illustrated

[Skull Pilot]

Fox, do you think we should be sending aid to Japan?

Sure. And the American people should be accumulating the cash and/or relief supplies to send over there. It should NOT be the responsiblity of the U.S. government however though it could be the receiver and transporter of the relief.

So you advocate all the neighbors in a neighborhood grabbing garden hoses in the event of a house-fire instead of taxing a community to pay for professional firefighting?

I wonder which would be more efficient?

there are an awful lot of communities that have all volunteer fire depts., mine does. They get very little from the town via taxes and almost their entire budget comes from fund raisers.

There has not been a death from a house fire in my town in over 10 years at least. So I'd say that's pretty efficient.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The question was answered. That you want to dismiss the moral question when that is exactly what you yourself are talking about proves that you have no intention of discussing the matter honestly. If you simply want to parrot rhetoric, find someone else to with whom to waste the time.

Responsible or not is kind of a moral question.

Should Citizen A feel some responsibility for his fellow man? That's a question only he can answer.

The role of government is to clean up the streets or not, depending on what percentage of Citizen A's feel a sense of responsibility versus those who don't.

It doesn't matter if Citizen A feels or even IS responsible - what matters is what the voters mandate. My humble opinion? If the vote is 50 / 50 for / against responsibility on a national level like it is now, kick it back to the states to keep their own streets clean.

 

[The T]

Sure. And the American people should be accumulating the cash and/or relief supplies to send over there. It should NOT be the responsiblity of the U.S. government however though it could be the receiver and transporter of the relief.

So you advocate all the neighbors in a neighborhood grabbing garden hoses in the event of a house-fire instead of taxing a community to pay for professional firefighting?

I wonder which would be more efficient?

there are an awful lot of communities that have all volunteer fire depts., mine does. They get very little from the town via taxes and almost their entire budget comes from fund raisers.

There has not been a death from a house fire in my town in over 10 years at least. So I'd say that's pretty efficient.

Yep. Community action. I service quite a few of them in my job and these people do thier jobs quite well.

 

[The T]

The question was answered. That you want to dismiss the moral question when that is exactly what you yourself are talking about proves that you have no intention of discussing the matter honestly. If you simply want to parrot rhetoric, find someone else to with whom to waste the time.

Responsible or not is kind of a moral question.

Should Citizen A feel some responsibility for his fellow man? That's a question only he can answer.

The role of government is to clean up the streets or not, depending on what percentage of Citizen A's feel a sense of responsibility versus those who don't.

It doesn't matter if Citizen A feels or even IS responsible - what matters is what the voters mandate. My humble opinion? If the vote is 50 / 50 for / against responsibility on a national level like it is now, kick it back to the states to keep their own streets clean.

They should...but that responsibility should NOT be coerced by Government against their will. It's an individual choice.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The question was answered. That you want to dismiss the moral question when that is exactly what you yourself are talking about proves that you have no intention of discussing the matter honestly. If you simply want to parrot rhetoric, find someone else to with whom to waste the time.

Responsible or not is kind of a moral question.

Should Citizen A feel some responsibility for his fellow man? That's a question only he can answer.

The role of government is to clean up the streets or not, depending on what percentage of Citizen A's feel a sense of responsibility versus those who don't.

It doesn't matter if Citizen A feels or even IS responsible - what matters is what the voters mandate. My humble opinion? If the vote is 50 / 50 for / against responsibility on a national level like it is now, kick it back to the states to keep their own streets clean.

Personally, I think that if one makes his own well being and then that of his family their sole concern then a society as a whole will prosper.

Making one less able to care for himself and his family by taking his earnings away so as to support another is counterproductive.

I contribute to the overall health of a community by not being and not allowing anyone in my family to be a burden on other members of said community.

Civic responsibility begins and ends with personal responsibility.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It is an interesting exercise though don't you think? Again I've never found a conservative who couldn't answer that question.

I've never found a liberal who could or would.

But I'll keep searching.

What answers do conservatives supply?

Answer the question and I'll tell you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158978-class-war-illustrated-12.html#post3418885

I await with baited breath.

 

[The T]

The question was answered. That you want to dismiss the moral question when that is exactly what you yourself are talking about proves that you have no intention of discussing the matter honestly. If you simply want to parrot rhetoric, find someone else to with whom to waste the time.

Responsible or not is kind of a moral question.

Should Citizen A feel some responsibility for his fellow man? That's a question only he can answer.

The role of government is to clean up the streets or not, depending on what percentage of Citizen A's feel a sense of responsibility versus those who don't.

It doesn't matter if Citizen A feels or even IS responsible - what matters is what the voters mandate. My humble opinion? If the vote is 50 / 50 for / against responsibility on a national level like it is now, kick it back to the states to keep their own streets clean.

Personally, I think that if one makes his own well being and then that of his family their sole concern then a society as a whole will prosper.

Making one less able to care for himself and his family by taking his earnings away so as to support another is counterproductive.

I contribute to the overall health of a community by not being and not allowing anyone in my family to be a burden on other members of said community.

Civic responsibility begins and ends with personal responsibility.

Basic if a civilization intends to survive. And a basic tenant that many here in this thread have yet to come to grips with.

 

[Seawytch]

All things being equal, what makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible to support Citizen B who did not make choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

Because it behooves a society to assist the less fortunate. A parent looking at a starving child will do anything to feed that child. A society that doesn't assist the less fortunate creates more crime. (It goes to the "general welfare" part)

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the malfeasance of financial institutions because their greed (and a lack of sufficient regulations to prevent that malfeasance) led to our economic collapse? Why can't we close the tax loopholes that allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor and middle class?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Just imagine how much greater it will be thirty years from now...

I think it will be.

But first we have to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut the defense budget.

don't you think it's a little funny how we can cut the wage and benefits of 150,000 people in Wisc at the very same time the two richest people in Wisc just improved their net worth from 36 billion to 44 billion in one year.
Maybe these guys being such great citizens of the state might just give the state the amount they need to balance the budget, since it was the people of the state and country they made their money off of.

Did you know they (koch bros and their rich friends*18 of the top 25 wealthiest families) have spent close to 500 million dollars trying to get rid of the inheritance tax, that would save them 78 billion it is est.

Look at it from the perspective of another economy and our relationship to it:

Which is a better market place to try and sell Ford cars and Boeing Airplanes... 6,000 Chinese Aristocrats with $7 Billion each to spend, or 7 Billion Chinese with a middle class income of $60,000 each to spend?​

This is the one that Liberals will find easy to answer and Conservatives may find themselves a wee bit tongue tied on because the correct answer is obvious, but it flies in the face of 'trickle down'.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the morality of anything. But morality has nothing to do with the question I posed. And it is not at all a loaded question. It is straight forward, to the point, realistic, and quite answerable if you are an American who has read and at least reasonably understands and agrees with the Constitution. If you are a Communist or Marxist or Socialist you will answer much differently than will a modern American conservative but you'll answer it quite easily.

And so far, no modern American liberal can or will even attempt it.

I find that a fascinating phenomenon.

What's the question?

It goes to the heart of the class war thing among other things.

The question is:

All things being equal, what makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible to support Citizen B who did not make choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

It implies they started off even.
It implies they both had choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous.

This is why it's dangerous to elect economists to policy offices - if an economist falls into a hole, he ass-u-me-s a ladder.

The question with those conditions is so far from reality as to make it silly.

How many of you out there in t.v. land actually believe that MOST of the government welfare entitlements are going to boys and girls with a middle class upbringing and education who would simply prefer to sit home and drink beer because they're lazy?

 

[AVG-JOE]

What do you think the heading on that chart in the OP titled "Tax Breaks For the Rich" means?

And tell me what is odd about the statement that tax cuts do not cost the taxpayer anything?

Indeed a tax cut leaves taxpayers with more of their own money not less. Government spending is what costs the taxpayers money let's not forget that.

In your checkbook - What the heck is the difference in the bottom line if the deposits get smaller or the outlays get bigger? Nothin... The point is that when either happens your bottom line is lower.

If I pay less in taxes and thereby get to keep more of my money how exactly is my bottom line lower than when i paid higher taxes?

It is the governments wanton reckless spending that is costing me money not a lower tax rate. What don't you understand about that?

All too true - and an issue that DESPERATELY needs to be addressed but, it's an issue that has NOTHING to do with the questions of "Are we collecting taxes fairly or not?" and "Should the tax code be profoundly changed?"

 

[manifold]

Foxfyre implied logic 101:

Anyone in need of govenment assistance is a dishonorable maker of poor choices. But it has nothing to do with morality.

 

[The T]

All things being equal, what makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible to support Citizen B who did not make choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

Because it behooves a society to assist the less fortunate. A parent looking at a starving child will do anything to feed that child. A society that doesn't assist the less fortunate creates more crime. (It goes to the "general welfare" part)

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the malfeasance of financial institutions because their greed (and a lack of sufficient regulations to prevent that malfeasance) led to our economic collapse? Why can't we close the tax loopholes that allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor and middle class?

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

When are you people going to understand this?

 

[Seawytch]

All things being equal, what makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible to support Citizen B who did not make choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

Because it behooves a society to assist the less fortunate. A parent looking at a starving child will do anything to feed that child. A society that doesn't assist the less fortunate creates more crime. (It goes to the "general welfare" part)

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the malfeasance of financial institutions because their greed (and a lack of sufficient regulations to prevent that malfeasance) led to our economic collapse? Why can't we close the tax loopholes that allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor and middle class?

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

When are you people going to understand this?

Why must General Welfare and National Defense be treated differently? I'm coerced into funding wars I disapprove of.

 

[manifold]

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

And our miltary should get their money from fundraisers too right? I mean afterall, taxing people to pay for foreign wars is just as much a coercion as taxing people to pay for general welfare programs right here at home.

 

[The T]

Because it behooves a society to assist the less fortunate. A parent looking at a starving child will do anything to feed that child. A society that doesn't assist the less fortunate creates more crime. (It goes to the "general welfare" part)

Why is it my responsibility to pay for the malfeasance of financial institutions because their greed (and a lack of sufficient regulations to prevent that malfeasance) led to our economic collapse? Why can't we close the tax loopholes that allow the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor and middle class?

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

When are you people going to understand this?

Why must General Welfare and National Defense be treated differently? I'm coerced into funding wars I disapprove of.

First the terms must be defined. The Founders DID in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers as the Constitution was being considered for ratification.

You answer lies there. General welfare does not mean 'people being on the dole at the expense of others'...as to national defense? I fail to see the comparison, much less the signifigance other than the people to be secure in their liberty, and their choices, and NOT at the expense of others that willingly portend to take it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sure. And the American people should be accumulating the cash and/or relief supplies to send over there. It should NOT be the responsiblity of the U.S. government however though it could be the receiver and transporter of the relief.

So you advocate all the neighbors in a neighborhood grabbing garden hoses in the event of a house-fire instead of taxing a community to pay for professional firefighting?

I wonder which would be more efficient?

there are an awful lot of communities that have all volunteer fire depts., mine does. They get very little from the town via taxes and almost their entire budget comes from fund raisers.

There has not been a death from a house fire in my town in over 10 years at least. So I'd say that's pretty efficient.

Granted. How do you reckon that would work for Chicago, NYC or Seattle? I imagine condos burning to the ground.

 

[Seawytch]

it may behoove them, but it should be left to the individual conscience NOT coerced or forced by Government fiat against their will.

When are you people going to understand this?

Why must General Welfare and National Defense be treated differently? I'm coerced into funding wars I disapprove of.

First the terms must be defined. The Founders DID in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers as the Constitution was being considered for ratification.

You answer lies there. General welfare does not mean 'people being on the dole at the expense of others'...as to national defense? I fail to see the comparison, much less the signifigance other than the people to be secure in their liberty, and their choices, and NOT at the expense of others that willingly portend to take it.

Just because you cannot see the comparison does not mean it is not a valid comparison. If the poor are more likely to commit a crime because they have no other option, it is incumbent upon the government to provide programs to feed the poor and destitute. We pay as an insurance policy to keep crime lower AND in the event we are ever in the same situation. How many people are a paycheck away from destitution?

 

[AVG-JOE]

So you advocate all the neighbors in a neighborhood grabbing garden hoses in the event of a house-fire instead of taxing a community to pay for professional firefighting?

I wonder which would be more efficient?

there are an awful lot of communities that have all volunteer fire depts., mine does. They get very little from the town via taxes and almost their entire budget comes from fund raisers.

There has not been a death from a house fire in my town in over 10 years at least. So I'd say that's pretty efficient.

Yep. Community action. I service quite a few of them in my job and these people do thier jobs quite well.

Tell me why taking up a collection from the community to fight community fires is 'Community Action' and taking up a collection from the community to keep the beggars and bums off the community streets is

I don't see the difference.

 

[manifold]

Point of clarification - The Federalist Papers are a series of editorials. They are not in any way, shape or form codified into law. Invoking the Federalist Papers as proof that one's own intepretation of the Consititution is correct and another's incorrect, is both a logical fallacy and a massive fail.