Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How can any service provide equal benefit to every citizen?
Does the function of maintaining justice provide equal benefit? A standing army to protect our borders? Police to maintain law and order? Courts to resolve disputes? Public education was originally justified - not because everyone had a 'right' to an education, but - because an educated population of voters was a public good that benefited everyone living under our democracy.
It's a judgment call, obviously, but when a government service can't but justified as something that promotes the general welfare of the nation, and instead services the specific welfare of individuals or groups, then it's not something we should be using government to provide. In particular, when we are tempted to look at a given program as something that only some people benefit from, at the expense of others, then we ought to question whether government is the right vehicle for providing that service.
This conflicts with you post at #247. The services you list in your first paragraph are exactly those that tax payers would vote for. Essential services that only the state can provide.
And let's look at all the jobs we provide and how my employees all benefit from those things too. I employ dozens of people. If I shut down, they go home. Explain how those costs only get pegged on me.
You make a profit off of every employee
Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do
They also profit more from infrastructure
without infrastructure I would not have been able to run a business.
Without my business, many would not have had jobs.
Your argument is flawed.
And let's look at all the jobs we provide and how my employees all benefit from those things too. I employ dozens of people. If I shut down, they go home. Explain how those costs only get pegged on me.
You make a profit off of every employee
Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do
They also profit more from infrastructure
Every employee also profits off of me. I put in all the money, I take all the risk, and if we go bust I lose all my money. They get paid no matter what unless I go under.
And yet seriously, "I" am only to be grateful to them? Nothing coming back?
No wonder you lived paycheck to paycheck your whole life, now you live welfare check to welfare check. You're not a Marxist, you're an ignorant, greedy, envious, unappreciative loser who would starve if no one paid your bills.
You make a profit off of every employee
Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do
They also profit more from infrastructure
without infrastructure I would not have been able to run a business.
Without my business, many would not have had jobs.
Your argument is flawed.
without infrastructure, my employees would not have had a business to come to or been able to get here and get paid and support their families. Exactly what I said, it's a shared resource, we all benefit from it. I also paid far more for it with the endless business taxes my business pays and then I pay more in income tax to boot.
You make a profit off of every employee
Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do
They also profit more from infrastructure
Every employee also profits off of me. I put in all the money, I take all the risk, and if we go bust I lose all my money. They get paid no matter what unless I go under.
And yet seriously, "I" am only to be grateful to them? Nothing coming back?
No wonder you lived paycheck to paycheck your whole life, now you live welfare check to welfare check. You're not a Marxist, you're an ignorant, greedy, envious, unappreciative loser who would starve if no one paid your bills.
I took a chance and started my own. I barley made a dime over the first two years....but the concept was sound and the model was working, so I stuck with it.
I did not take vacations for a few years....and for the first year, there was no such thing as a weekend.
I did not have "set hours"....I worked until I was done for the day.
By the third year I had a staff......their first day, they generated an income for themselves...no waiting to see if they were successful as I did. They took no risk. Laid out no money to join me. They received a 66% contribution to their health insurance; received 2 weeks vacation; overtime when they worked beyond the set hours; a few breaks a day.
They received an education from me....one left me to start his own and he still calls me for advice.
None could have worked for me if there was no infrastructure as many had to drive to work or take mass transit.
Seems to me, we all benefited.....but MY RISK is why I made more than they did.
Given that virtually everyone who argues that the franchise should be extended only to those who pay taxes are on the right reinforces the notion of George Carlin's saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Conservatives care about property, liberals care about people.
This argument presumes that the only thing that matters as a citizen is income. That is so ludicrously wrong, it's hard to believe any clear-thinking individual would even think so. There are many issues that affect everyone as a nation, whether or not you pay taxes, from war to the environment. If someone is out of work and collecting social assistance, or someone is retired and on social security, or someone is just poor, they shouldn't have a say over whether the government can send your kid off to war, or whether a chemical plant gets built by your house?
It's amazing how tone deaf and detached from reality so many on the right are these days.
I disagree with the Carlin line.
People believe that those that "get" but do not "give" will likely vote for "themselves"....and not vote for what is best for the nation as a whole.
Has nothing to do about not caring about people.
But, again, I disagree with the idea of banning a law abiding citizen from voting.
I actually disagree with the George Carlin line as well. I know better than that.
THE most compassionate people I have ever know are conservatives. I have know some pretty nice lefties too
Does the function of maintaining justice provide equal benefit? A standing army to protect our borders? Police to maintain law and order? Courts to resolve disputes? Public education was originally justified - not because everyone had a 'right' to an education, but - because an educated population of voters was a public good that benefited everyone living under our democracy.
It's a judgment call, obviously, but when a government service can't but justified as something that promotes the general welfare of the nation, and instead services the specific welfare of individuals or groups, then it's not something we should be using government to provide. In particular, when we are tempted to look at a given program as something that only some people benefit from, at the expense of others, then we ought to question whether government is the right vehicle for providing that service.
This conflicts with you post at #247. The services you list in your first paragraph are exactly those that tax payers would vote for. Essential services that only the state can provide.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
My point is that the only services government should provide are those that benefit all of us generally. If we don't think they are doing that, if we think certain programs function merely to benefit some at the expense of others, then we should work to abolish those programs - not use it as an excuse to undermine equal protection with schemes like those suggested in the OP.
without infrastructure I would not have been able to run a business.
Without my business, many would not have had jobs.
Your argument is flawed.
without infrastructure, my employees would not have had a business to come to or been able to get here and get paid and support their families. Exactly what I said, it's a shared resource, we all benefit from it. I also paid far more for it with the endless business taxes my business pays and then I pay more in income tax to boot.
Most don't even know what employer tax matching is...
Most have not a clue what "2nd employer of record" means when it comes to unemployment liabilities.
Heck, that in itself is a major cost.
Every employee also profits off of me. I put in all the money, I take all the risk, and if we go bust I lose all my money. They get paid no matter what unless I go under.
And yet seriously, "I" am only to be grateful to them? Nothing coming back?
No wonder you lived paycheck to paycheck your whole life, now you live welfare check to welfare check. You're not a Marxist, you're an ignorant, greedy, envious, unappreciative loser who would starve if no one paid your bills.
I took a chance and started my own. I barley made a dime over the first two years....but the concept was sound and the model was working, so I stuck with it.
I did not take vacations for a few years....and for the first year, there was no such thing as a weekend.
I did not have "set hours"....I worked until I was done for the day.
By the third year I had a staff......their first day, they generated an income for themselves...no waiting to see if they were successful as I did. They took no risk. Laid out no money to join me. They received a 66% contribution to their health insurance; received 2 weeks vacation; overtime when they worked beyond the set hours; a few breaks a day.
They received an education from me....one left me to start his own and he still calls me for advice.
None could have worked for me if there was no infrastructure as many had to drive to work or take mass transit.
Seems to me, we all benefited.....but MY RISK is why I made more than they did.
I'm in the fifth year of my business. My goal is to take off two honest to goodness weeks a year. This year I came closest so far, I took a full week off in July and Christmas week I took off Christmas Day, Thursday and Friday. I'm the first online in the morning and the last in the parking lot at night. As you say, I work every weekend at least one day.
But "I" should just be grateful to my employees. RW is clueless. Then again, we're so completely out of his knowledge base, how would he not be?
I disagree with the Carlin line.
People believe that those that "get" but do not "give" will likely vote for "themselves"....and not vote for what is best for the nation as a whole.
Has nothing to do about not caring about people.
But, again, I disagree with the idea of banning a law abiding citizen from voting.
I actually disagree with the George Carlin line as well. I know better than that.
THE most compassionate people I have ever know are conservatives. I have know some pretty nice lefties too
I generally disagree with Carlin's line also. However, this argument reinforces the notion put forward by people on the left.
Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?
Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?
Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?
Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?
Does the function of maintaining justice provide equal benefit? A standing army to protect our borders? Police to maintain law and order? Courts to resolve disputes? Public education was originally justified - not because everyone had a 'right' to an education, but - because an educated population of voters was a public good that benefited everyone living under our democracy.
It's a judgment call, obviously, but when a government service can't but justified as something that promotes the general welfare of the nation, and instead services the specific welfare of individuals or groups, then it's not something we should be using government to provide. In particular, when we are tempted to look at a given program as something that only some people benefit from, at the expense of others, then we ought to question whether government is the right vehicle for providing that service.
This conflicts with you post at #247. The services you list in your first paragraph are exactly those that tax payers would vote for. Essential services that only the state can provide.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
My point is that the only services government should provide are those that benefit all of us generally. If we don't think they are doing that, if we think certain programs function merely to benefit some at the expense of others, then we should work to abolish those programs - not use it as an excuse to undermine equal protection with schemes like those suggested in the OP.
This conflicts with you post at #247. The services you list in your first paragraph are exactly those that tax payers would vote for. Essential services that only the state can provide.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
My point is that the only services government should provide are those that benefit all of us generally. If we don't think they are doing that, if we think certain programs function merely to benefit some at the expense of others, then we should work to abolish those programs - not use it as an excuse to undermine equal protection with schemes like those suggested in the OP.
You and I are on the same page that at least the federal government should be restricted to providing what benefits all and not what is targeted for individuals, groups, demographics, or entities. And proper government infrastructure invariably follows commerce and industry and people living their lives rather than the other way around and is voted by the people who will pay for it.
As for any federal programs that don't fit that criteria, I think we are already past the point of no return there. Those in government whether elected, appointed, or hired into a massive bureacracy, have mostly become totally self serving putting their own self interests ahead of anybody they serve. Thus they no longer care about any negative consequences just so long as they can increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth now on the theory they will have theirs and be long gone before the sky falls in on them.
And the recipients of the bones they throw at the people to keep the people voting for them are also far less concerned with any negative consequences and are much more afraid they might lose those meager bones.
The only solution I see is a Constitutional Amendment making it illegal for anybody in government to provide anybody, including themselves, with any benefit that is not provided to all uniformly across the country and Congress will pass no law that everybody in government is not also subject to. We would need to allow sufficient time to carefully transfer all improper federal programs to the states where such programs belonged in the first place.
That would restore fiscal and ethical integrity to government and replace career politicians and bureaucrats, who would have no more ability to profit at our expense, with public servants interested in providing good government, not self serving government.
And it would make all those questions in the OP moot.
Let's explore that. The top 1% of payers pay 40% of taxes. Now show they get more than that back in government expenditures.
Well lets start with a military that protects their investments around the globe
Lets look at a legal system that protects their intellectual property
Lets look at an educational system that provides them with trained workers
Lets look at infrastructure that allows them to bring in supplies and distribute goods
And let's look at all the jobs we provide and how my employees all benefit from those things too. I employ dozens of people. If I shut down, they go home. Explain how those costs only get pegged on me.
Say it to yourself.
JIM CROWE!
Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?
Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?
Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?
Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?
I took a chance and started my own. I barley made a dime over the first two years....but the concept was sound and the model was working, so I stuck with it.
I did not take vacations for a few years....and for the first year, there was no such thing as a weekend.
I did not have "set hours"....I worked until I was done for the day.
By the third year I had a staff......their first day, they generated an income for themselves...no waiting to see if they were successful as I did. They took no risk. Laid out no money to join me. They received a 66% contribution to their health insurance; received 2 weeks vacation; overtime when they worked beyond the set hours; a few breaks a day.
They received an education from me....one left me to start his own and he still calls me for advice.
None could have worked for me if there was no infrastructure as many had to drive to work or take mass transit.
Seems to me, we all benefited.....but MY RISK is why I made more than they did.
I'm in the fifth year of my business. My goal is to take off two honest to goodness weeks a year. This year I came closest so far, I took a full week off in July and Christmas week I took off Christmas Day, Thursday and Friday. I'm the first online in the morning and the last in the parking lot at night. As you say, I work every weekend at least one day.
But "I" should just be grateful to my employees. RW is clueless. Then again, we're so completely out of his knowledge base, how would he not be?
I cashed out. Had enough. 55 years old and my wife wanted to try her own...and God knows 2 business owners under the same roof would be death to all!
Besides....she is much brighter and much more patient than I am.
It took me over two years to hire my first employee.......but when I sold it, we had 15 (I sold it to my assistant of 5 years. In my eyes, she earned it).
My wife? She had 8 employees by her 6th month. Turned a profit by her 2nd month.
Now?
I am bored sick!
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
My point is that the only services government should provide are those that benefit all of us generally. If we don't think they are doing that, if we think certain programs function merely to benefit some at the expense of others, then we should work to abolish those programs - not use it as an excuse to undermine equal protection with schemes like those suggested in the OP.
You and I are on the same page that at least the federal government should be restricted to providing what benefits all and not what is targeted for individuals, groups, demographics, or entities. And proper government infrastructure invariably follows commerce and industry and people living their lives rather than the other way around and is voted by the people who will pay for it.
As for any federal programs that don't fit that criteria, I think we are already past the point of no return there. Those in government whether elected, appointed, or hired into a massive bureacracy, have mostly become totally self serving putting their own self interests ahead of anybody they serve. Thus they no longer care about any negative consequences just so long as they can increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth now on the theory they will have theirs and be long gone before the sky falls in on them.
And the recipients of the bones they throw at the people to keep the people voting for them are also far less concerned with any negative consequences and are much more afraid they might lose those meager bones.
The only solution I see is a Constitutional Amendment making it illegal for anybody in government to provide anybody, including themselves, with any benefit that is not provided to all uniformly across the country and Congress will pass no law that everybody in government is not also subject to. We would need to allow sufficient time to carefully transfer all improper federal programs to the states where such programs belonged in the first place.
That would restore fiscal and ethical integrity to government and replace career politicians and bureaucrats, who would have no more ability to profit at our expense, with public servants interested in providing good government, not self serving government.
And it would make all those questions in the OP moot.
Help those who need helping
Easy enough
Well lets start with a military that protects their investments around the globe
Lets look at a legal system that protects their intellectual property
Lets look at an educational system that provides them with trained workers
Lets look at infrastructure that allows them to bring in supplies and distribute goods
And let's look at all the jobs we provide and how my employees all benefit from those things too. I employ dozens of people. If I shut down, they go home. Explain how those costs only get pegged on me.
Who paid for your employee's educations?
Help those who need helping
Easy enough
You and I are on the same page that at least the federal government should be restricted to providing what benefits all and not what is targeted for individuals, groups, demographics, or entities. And proper government infrastructure invariably follows commerce and industry and people living their lives rather than the other way around and is voted by the people who will pay for it.
As for any federal programs that don't fit that criteria, I think we are already past the point of no return there. Those in government whether elected, appointed, or hired into a massive bureacracy, have mostly become totally self serving putting their own self interests ahead of anybody they serve. Thus they no longer care about any negative consequences just so long as they can increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth now on the theory they will have theirs and be long gone before the sky falls in on them.
And the recipients of the bones they throw at the people to keep the people voting for them are also far less concerned with any negative consequences and are much more afraid they might lose those meager bones.
The only solution I see is a Constitutional Amendment making it illegal for anybody in government to provide anybody, including themselves, with any benefit that is not provided to all uniformly across the country and Congress will pass no law that everybody in government is not also subject to. We would need to allow sufficient time to carefully transfer all improper federal programs to the states where such programs belonged in the first place.
That would restore fiscal and ethical integrity to government and replace career politicians and bureaucrats, who would have no more ability to profit at our expense, with public servants interested in providing good government, not self serving government.
And it would make all those questions in the OP moot.
Help those who need helping
Easy enough
A noble and easy thing when it is voluntary and out of the goodness of your heart.
Not so noble and easy when we give people power to demand how much of our help they are entitled to.
