Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're talking about artificially supporting an exponentially growing dependent class, at the expense of a shrinking taxpaying population.
No, I'm not.
We already have a dependent class we support, and I'm describing ways we can shrink that class. Giving them sh*t jobs is better than giving them welfare.
You may not think these methods will be successful, and that's fine -- but don't try and put words in my mouth to describe some motivation that isn't there.
(Actually, who am I kidding? You've been a total jackass on dozens of threads. Of course you will put words in my mouth.)
We already have a dependent class, and I'm describing ways we can shrink that class.
No, you're not. Your proposing extending the dependent class additional artificial support.
Quote:
You may not think these methods will be successful, and that's fine -- but don't try and put a motive in my mouth.
It's not about what I 'think.' It's about the 3 to 1 birth rate. The result of liberal idiocy is that the dependent class is exponentially outbreeding those who pay to support them.
Quote:
(Actually, who am I kidding? You've been a total jackass on dozens of threads. Of course you will put words in my mouth.)
If you call pointing out the factual negative consequences of ill-advised liberal policies that clearly have not been thought through for their inevitable negative consequences 'being a jackass'... well, then... have at it.
If the only option is to work crap paying jobs and live poorly or die, I guarantee you that people will strive to move up. Those that don't, well... they are happy at their stage and I wish them all the best.
This stupid concept that we can take the non-motivated and lazy and somehow make them motivated by handing them money is absurd and that is exactly what these systems do.
Live... die.... what is your choice? Most "humans" would choose live and do anything they can to achieve it.
Here:
You clearly advocate providing artificial means of support
You changed your story. First you said "additional" means of support, which I don't agree with. I don't think any additional support is needed. In that post I am clearly arguing in favor of a progressive tax system, which we already have.
Now you took off that important adjective -- and you're trying to pull a bait and switch on me. You're now talking about "any support at all", including progressive taxation. In that case, then I don't think there's anything wrong with the level of support that the indigent are given today, I just think it is inefficient.
Fees for services freely exchanged is the only moral system. Anything else is theft at gunpoint. Arbitrary fines or "taxes" unrelated to free exchange is an abomination. If a person doesn't use a "service" they shouldn't pay for it, otherwise it is theft. If a person is forced to "buy" a service through threat, it is extortion or racketeering. How anyone buys into selective and arbitrary theft by GoDvernment theft is beyond me.
Actually, I prefer gutting the government like a pig and removing ALL of the stupid social systems leaving it simply with defense and constitutional oversight of the states.
I am simply going along with your very poorly thought out system and bringing up issues with it.
Or... maybe we can recognize the complete failure of your proposal? That it is a witch hunt for your perceived "rich" and does not rationally evaluate such.
As I said, under your system, it would oppress anyone who wants to save for a comfortable retirement. In your system, you penalize those who plan, those who excel, and those who are self sufficient.
Sorry, but your system would create a welfare state where people refuse to excel because doing so means you club them over the head.
Here is a thought...
Cut the damn spending of government. Shut down ALL of its social programs. Put its involvement in terms of managing and regulating to that of simply defense and constitutional oversight as I mentioned earlier. Then we do not need to tax excessively and we can simply have a small base percent taken that does not discriminate, does not hide behind loopholes and does not pillage the American people for their money like a deviant thug?
As I said, your problem is that your "ideal" is driving your application and the only "ideal" you should be seeking is the one to which this country was founded on. If you are seeking other ideals, then you are in conflict with this nation and should clarify such so we do not waste time thinking you have any legitimate approach to the current problem.
Wait, you changed your story. First you said "additional" means of support, which I don't agree with.
You argued against a national sales tax part of the OP's proposal that everyone including the low-income would have to pay. You claimed it was regressive. National means EVERYONE pays. You objected to that. The additional means of support would be the exemption from the national sales tax.
Why can't you follow the logical meanings of your own posts?
Quote:
If you are talking about any support at all, yes, I don't think there's anything wrong with the level of support that the indigent are given today, I just think it is inefficient.
You don't think a 3 to 1 birth rate is a problem?
Do the math. At which point will the exponentially growing dependent class be no longer supportable in the manner to which they've become accustomed?
You argued against a national sales tax part of the OP's proposal that everyone including the low-income would have to pay. You claimed it was regressive. National means EVERYONE pays. You objected to that.
Yup.
Quote:
The additional means of support would be the exemption from the national sales tax.
Huh? A national sales tax doesn't exist, and I don't support it -- so that isn't "additional support."
Quote:
You don't think a 3 to 1 birth rate is a problem?
I don't think a regressive tax rate is the solution that problem.
But... go ahead and tell me what I "really said," and why it is wrong. I know how you loooove to get the last word.
Last edited by le roi; 08-01-2011 at 04:29 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
