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.
I WAS a single mother many years ago. Working full time, going to school in the evenings and volunteering as a Cub Scout leader on top of that. Don't tell me how tough it is now. Back in the day, if you were working, you were ineligible for any type of assistance, except free school lunches for the kids.
No way you are that old. Food stamps have been available since 1961 (during the depression also). So you are pretty old? Why are you still working?
Quote:
I do no disservice to anyone. You can't alter facts, and what I see on a daily basis M-F. And what difference does it make who I voted for? Gee, did I touch a nerve??
Here's the trick, have you lived in Europe? I mean actually resided there, not just spent a vacation, or an exchange term at school there? I mean actually lived there for say three or more years? The problem with the fascination of the left in the U.S. with the feel-good social programs of Europe is their deliberate, and willful ignorance to the fact that those programs simply do not work. They are fiscally unsustainable. For a recent example, see the EU wide austerity measures from 2008-2010.
The reality is that yes, people in places like the U.K. do pay significantly higher taxes, but do not receive the "far better health care" you mention as a return on their investment. The NHS is in a shambles. It has operated in the red for nearly 2 decades. The quality of care is nowhere near what we enjoy in the U.S. Wait times for all elective procedures, and care rationing are very real things. I know this, because I lived there, and had to use the NHS for medical care.
So let me ask you in return, is it worth paying a significantly higher amount in taxes, and getting a lower standard of care in return, so long as everyone has the same low level of care?
I have a lot of family living in Norway. It is pretty socialized. They are guaranteed healthcare, education up to and beyond college, there are no homeless, there are not people living in substandard housing, etc. There is a wide social net and taxation is high. My family members all have or are retired from regular jobs - office workers, one is a medical social worker, one managed a gym, a few engineers, carpenter, etc. But they all have nice homes, good cars, they travel regularly, and many have second homes (cottages out on a lake.) Of course, Norway is a smaller country than the US, so there are differences, but when I look at the comfortable, secure lifestyles of my family there, I wonder about people who think that a degree of socialism is so bad. I think it can be taken too far (I understand that Greece is an example) but it doesn't seem reasonable that many in the US are so afraid of even a whiff of social community.
You have argued to help others by using other people's money, not your own!
B.S. We (the wife and I) make six figures. I pay plenty in taxes. Have you ever seen me to argue to cut them?
I've also noted that I have two insurances. Mine and the wife's. I understand that a public program may not be as good as I currently have. I've even argued that if it takes raising taxes, fine. I pay some now.
Quote:
Not only that, you have argued that the government should force others people at gunpoint to pay for it.
You have argued to help others by using other people's money, not your own!
Not only that, you have argued that the government should force others people at gunpoint to pay for it.
You're one of those "taxes are theft" "Force me at gunpoint" type of people. You guys are a tiny minority in America. You basically are calling for a communist revolution in America. Because the type of policies you are advocating for are so brutal for the sick, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the poor children, the jobless and the destitute that it will lead to mass revolts and a police state. Only unhinged people fail to see this.
And then I've had people argue it should be voluntary. Those who argue for it to happen at the state level haven't bothered to explain how the funding will work.
Paying for common infrastructure being voluntary is a very fringe position. Totally believe you that you've seen people hold that view, but you're talking about a strange position held by a handful of individuals, not the view of most conservatives or Republicans.
You can think that certain spending could be better managed by the feds, states, or cities without having a well-formed position on what the most efficient form of taxation is at that level of government. You don't really need to have a well-formed opinion on whether income or sales tax is a better way to fund state spending to have a well-formed opinion that a state would be better or worse at doing a thing than the feds, unless you also hold the belief that the feds or state are fundamentally much better at the mechanics of collecting taxes, which, eh, not much evidence for that on the whole (states have more variance, but that's because there are 50 of them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
You're one of those "taxes are theft" "Force me at gunpoint" type of people. You guys are a tiny minority in America. You basically are calling for a communist revolution in America. Because the type of policies you are advocating for are so brutal for the sick, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the poor children, the jobless and the destitute that it will lead to mass revolts and a police state. Only unhinged people fail to see this.
Tell you what, refuse to pay your taxes and then come back after you pay + a large penalty, get your wages garnished, and/or get out of jail and tell us it's not "at the point of a gun." Some government spending creates so much value that it's worth the coercion (see: roads, schools, police, and so on) & even most people who aren't delusional about the involuntary nature still support it but be real it is not voluntary, and it is backed up at the end of the day by the ability of the state to put you a jail cell and/or seize your property.
Paying for common infrastructure being voluntary is a very fringe position. Totally believe you that you've seen people hold that view, but you're talking about a strange position held by a handful of individuals, not the view of most conservatives or Republicans.
Probably so. Republicans want it, they just won't pay for it.
Quote:
You can think that certain spending could be better managed by the feds, states, or cities without having a well-formed position on what the most efficient form of taxation is at that level of government. You don't really need to have a well-formed opinion on whether income or sales tax is a better way to fund state spending to have a well-formed opinion that a state would be better or worse at doing a thing than the feds, unless you also hold the belief that the feds or state are fundamentally much better at the mechanics of collecting taxes, which, eh, not much evidence for that on the whole (states have more variance, but that's because there are 50 of them).
I believe it can be better run and I've called for the ouster of anyone politician that doesn't address that.
You have argued to help others by using other people's money, not your own!
Not only that, you have argued that the government should force others people at gunpoint to pay for it.
Always dramatizing with the "at gunpoint" emphasis.
By that logic, the government also forces you to wear seatbelts at gunpoint, it forces you to abstain from personal drug use at gunpoint, it forces you help other countries (foreign aid) at gunpoint.
Are certain types of gunpointing worse than others in your view?
Paying for common infrastructure being voluntary is a very fringe position. Totally believe you that you've seen people hold that view, but you're talking about a strange position held by a handful of individuals, not the view of most conservatives or Republicans.
You can think that certain spending could be better managed by the feds, states, or cities without having a well-formed position on what the most efficient form of taxation is at that level of government. You don't really need to have a well-formed opinion on whether income or sales tax is a better way to fund state spending to have a well-formed opinion that a state would be better or worse at doing a thing than the feds, unless you also hold the belief that the feds or state are fundamentally much better at the mechanics of collecting taxes, which, eh, not much evidence for that on the whole (states have more variance, but that's because there are 50 of them).
Tell you what, refuse to pay your taxes and then come back after you pay + a large penalty, get your wages garnished, and/or get out of jail and tell us it's not "at the point of a gun." Some government spending creates so much value that it's worth the coercion (see: roads, schools, police, and so on) & even most people who aren't delusional about the involuntary nature still support it but be real it is not voluntary, and it is backed up at the end of the day by the ability of the state to put you a jail cell and/or seize your property.
If things like roads, schools, and police are worth the coercion, why isn't affordable healthcare?
Tell you what, refuse to pay your taxes and then come back after you pay + a large penalty, get your wages garnished, and/or get out of jail and tell us it's not "at the point of a gun." Some government spending creates so much value that it's worth the coercion (see: roads, schools, police, and so on) & even most people who aren't delusional about the involuntary nature still support it but be real it is not voluntary, and it is backed up at the end of the day by the ability of the state to put you a jail cell and/or seize your property.
Libertarians/"closet communists"(??) are so extreme in their hyperbole. "taxes are theft", "force me at gunpoint" "I am a slave because I pay taxes" are just meant to get people riled up about public services the vast majority of the people enjoy (and certainly dont want to see eliminated).
No way you are that old. Food stamps have been available since 1961 (during the depression also). So you are pretty old? Why are you still working?
Indeed you did and I stated why.
You are getting pretty personal, asking me who I voted for, how old I am, and why I am still working, and on top of that basically calling me a liar. Pretty rude behavior. Here's my answer: None of your business. How's that? And since you have boasted you and your wife are making six figures a year, I'm assuming you have no personal experience with obtaining state aid.
You have no idea what the guidelines were in the state I was living in at the time I needed any type of assistance. Since it is my experience, not yours, it is safe to assume that I know what happened more than you.
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.
