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.
Not in the slightest. If you want to see how they are related you need to look no further then president Bush's "faith based initiative" which was basically a way to take tax dollars and front them to further the far right's religious based ideas. You also have Ken Cuccinelli's brain child which uses Virginia tax dollars to fund anti-choice pregnancy centers where such gems of wisdom as "abortions give you AIDS" and "the pill will make you sterile forever" are sold.
If you think the a huge section of right has any issue with taking tax dollars and feeding it into their unceasing efforts to try and impose there own version of religious law on America you are sadly mistaken. They will not only use your tax dollars for the schemes above but also to invest in an enforcement apparatus for whatever public morals legislation they want to put on the books. It should be worth noting that the case that brought down DOMA was one where a woman was having to pay an almost $400,000 tax simply because she was gay and the federal government had a public morals law preventing it from recognizing her marriage. Not to mention you have a fair amount of people on the right that want to have the state play an active role in promoting the Judeo-Christian religion and are more then happy to tax as much as necessary to do so.
spot on
the Faith Based Initiative was textbook redistribution. Completely unconstitutional as well.
We all agree that those who lack any resource don't pay taxes.
But as soon as you agree to that you agree that taxing can be progressive....what is more progressive than some pay and some don't?
Than we are into an argument about how progressive. Well having agreed that progressive is required it would seem that any number of algorithms could be used.
Sensible arguments go to taxing where the money is. You look at the pile of money built up by various income classes and tax the hell out of the big bundles. Simple and pragmatic.
This is nonsense.
You're arguing that a city, state, or county should pave on the road by the rich guy's house, or that fire departments funded by taxes should only fight fire for the rich guy's house, or that police only defend rich people, or that's 'redistribution'. Which is absurd. It may be that the tax burden for these is unequal, but no way is that taking from one person to give to another to spend.
That's the definition of redistribution. When you collect taxes and then spread the spending around you are redistributing wealth from one community to another. When you raise the income tax by .5% on earners making over 70k a year and use the money to build nursery schools in the ghetto you are redistributing wealth from one community to another. This is what our Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did here in California. Except it was for after-school programs for inner city youth. Taxes from the wealthy went to pay for it.
Oh, good grief, you stretch meanings to the point of insanity.
he's also completely mischaracterizing the liberal point of view on the issue. Actually, it's not just a liberal point of view. I know lots of Republicans who believe that we as a society have a moral obligation to take care of the elderly and other segments of society that can't help themselves.
No, you're arguing that calling it a "moral obligation" makes it perfectly fine to take money from one to give to another. But you put people in jail if they take the initiative and do it, calling it theft.
Quote:
But the OP is personalizing so to make it seem like the people want to take his money and give it to some lazy bum on the street so he can drink and eat del taco.
I said nothing about del taco, nor anything about anyone being lazy.
Isn't your constitution fairly clear about the state having the right to levy taxes? That seems pretty important, I feel positive they wouldn't have left it out.
Yes, it is. It's also clear about precisely WHAT those taxes can be spent on, and that it prohibits spending on anything NOT authorized.
Really? The left aren't the ones that want to ban gay marriage because of the bible and public morals. The right all throughout my lifetime has been trying to legislate their morality on folks. If you want to talk about the government dictating morality through laws the right is the first place to look.
Isn't "minimum wage" law about forcing your brand of "morality"?
Isn't being forced to provide money and all kinds of benefits to people who don't work for it your brand of "morality"?
And why is it not being allowed to kill another human being offensive to your morality?
Isn't "minimum wage" law about forcing your brand of "morality"?
Isn't being forced to provide money and all kinds of benefits to people who don't work for it your brand of "morality"?
And why is it not being allowed to kill another human being offensive to your morality?
The minimum wage law has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with economics. It exists to strike a balance between unorganized labor and business such that there isn't a large highly volatile underclass prone to developing Communist ideas and when I say Communist I don't mean the the CD conservative's version that means anything that may or may not be slightly on the left that they don't like, I mean real USSR or Chinese style shoot everyone with money and force the rest onto collective enterprises Communism.
Killing another human is offensive to my morality, however if you are talking about abortion, a ball of cells is not a human and it is more offensive to my morality to say to a woman that if she gets pregnant even by a rapist that she has no control over her body because god and Jesus say so.
The minimum wage law has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with economics.
Pure and utter nonsense.
Quote:
It exists to strike a balance between unorganized labor and business such that there isn't a large highly volatile underclass prone to developing Communist ideas and when I say Communist I don't mean the the CD conservative's version that means anything that may or may not be slightly on the left that they don't like, I mean real USSR or Chinese style shoot everyone with money and force the rest onto collective enterprises Communism.
Pure and utter garbage. Make a real argument.
Quote:
Killing another human is offensive to my morality, however if you are talking about abortion, a ball of cells is not a human and it is more offensive to my morality to say to a woman that if she gets pregnant even by a rapist she has no control over her body because god and Jesus say so.
Explain how the unborn is not human.
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.
