Cornell 5th graders react to being forced to pay $350 for SOMEONE ELSES healthcare.....

[308]

Honesty, I'm not that down on taxes...not loving them mind you, but I don't consider them "slavery and theft"...but given the choice of a bridge that serves 20 people...who don't even want it...yeah, I'd rather feed 30,000 kids for 6 months.

The problem with forced taxation is people tend to use it as an excuse to avoid charitable giving. The assumption is .gov will take care those in need. DotGov was never intended to be DotYou and DotMe when it comes to helping those within our sphere of influence.

[Kadmos]

The problem with forced taxation is people tend to use it as an excuse to avoid charitable giving. The assumption is .gov will take care those in need. DotGov was never intended to be DotYou and DotMe when it comes to helping those within our sphere of influence.

I understand that theory, but I just don't agree. We still give billions to charity. People still give their own time and sweat to help others.

Yeah a person can say "Well the government is dealing with that, so why should I?" But that same type of person can just as easily say "not my problem" when nobody is taking care of it.

I just don't see the type of person who would get involved really saying "Eh, the government's got it handled". There is too much obvious need around that anyone who want's to look at the situation, will see it.

[308]

I understand that theory, but I just don't agree. We still give billions to charity. People still give their own time and sweat to help others.

Yeah a person can say "Well the government is dealing with that, so why should I?" But that same type of person can just as easily say "not my problem" when nobody is taking care of it.

I just don't see the type of person who would get involved really saying "Eh, the government's got it handled". There is too much obvious need around that anyone who want's to look at the situation, will see it.

Did you write that correctly? It sounds contradictory...no bigs.
When you say "we give billions" who is the "we"...are you speaking about personal charitable giving or from the coerced .gov knows best who to share it with taxation method?

What I do know is filthy rich people like Gore and Biden don't give squat to charity. Their annual charitable giving is laughable.

[Kadmos]

Did you write that correctly? It sounds contradictory...no bigs.
When you say "we give billions" who is the "we"...are you speaking about personal charitable giving or from the coerced .gov knows best who to share it with taxation method?

I think I did. Basically trying to say the kind of person who will give, is still going to do so, whether these government programs exist or not.

Yes, by "we" I meant Americans giving to charity.

What I do know is filthy rich people like Gore and Biden don't give squat to charity. Their annual charitable giving is laughable.

True, and it's disappointing to the point of disgusting. Thankfully though, they do contribute to the tax system (in some form or other), so they still are in a way helping to feed people.


This is the age old problem of "Do I give to that beggar?". If you see a guy begging, is he really in need? Is he just lazy? A drug user? Is he going to walk around the corner and hop into his payed for BMW? Does he make more than you or I, just scamming people? Is he really a Vet as his sign may claim?

And the big one...If I don't help him, won't someone else just do it?

This is the good part of the system we have. To get benefits these folks have to prove some level of need, it can be administered in such a way where a few people aren't getting way too many benefits while others in need get too few, or none.

It also gives us a way to look after children when their parents might be too proud to ask for help.

Obviously the whole thing is far from perfect. But it's better than just hoping for the best.

[ltorlo64]

Baloney. As you say later it's a matter of priorities. There is plenty of money to feed the people. But when you also want to build bridges to nowhere, pay hundreds of dollars for each load of laundry in Iraq to be done by private contractors, etc, etc, etc of waste, then it becomes an issue.

I guess it depends on what you think government’s job is, which does come down to priorities. Is it to feed people and provide social programs so no one has to suffer the effects of failing or is it to provide roads and protection in the form of military, police and firefighters. There is not plenty of money for both. There are many great examples the most recent being Greece and Russia (with China starting to show signs of failing as well) where this has been proven.

We don't get to individually decide what gets paid for. If you wanna complain, go ahead...you're just going to raise your own blood pressure. I like to think of my personal taxes as going to fund the parks. I can live with that and get on with my life. If it goes to feed kids...well, I'm cool with that also.

You have no "responsibility to take care of your neighbor". You either choose to take on that task or you don't.

If anything abdicating it to the government allows you to further not think about it, while still feeling that they are taken care of to a degree.

Now we get to the real issue. Liberals claim to care, claim to be selfless, but when it comes to the where the rubber meets the road they feel no responsibility for their fellow man, no compassion for their neighbor. The do feel guilty when they see someone in need, so they figure out a way to take from someone else so they don’t have to think about it.

Had you just posted this at the beginning instead of acting as if your position of neglect and theft was morally superior this conversation would have stopped at page 1.

They still have the same "freedoms", but they get to enjoy them without starving.

Not really. They are told they cannot make more than a certain amount or else they lose their assistance, which they have been taught they cannot live without. This not only enslaves the person who the money is being taken from it enslaves the person being “assisted” as it virtually assures they will always have to have that assistance. I have already discussed other freedoms that are taken, but they don’t mean that much to you.

I didn't point out why it was true, only where the money from republicans tends to go.

I notice you conveniently disregard the lush lives of the liberals. You know, the ones who feel no responsibility to their neighbor and yet feel compelled to ensure that the rest of us ensure they don’t need to either.



Thanks for the link...I really loved this part "Note: I used “about 75%” from memory, which is getting a little less accurate these days. In the future, using the “about 70%” figure would probably be better."

A little less accurate? Even the worst programs only barely reach 20% in administrative costs, and the food stamp program is hardly among the worst, with less that 6% going to Administrative costs

http://www.obpa.usda.gov/30fns2013notes.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...a239_blog.html[/quote]

There are more costs to overhead than administrative. The information you posted does not include buildings, building maintenance, vehicles and vehicle maintenance (though there is a line for transportation) and pensions, to name a few. This is why the estimate is much higher than the published numbers.

People didn't have money for food. It was rotting in storage waiting on buyers.

I thought it was the farmers who were in trouble? They were growing the food and then putting it in storage and letting it rot while their families starved?

[Kadmos]

I guess it depends on what you think government’s job is, which does come down to priorities. Is it to feed people and provide social programs so no one has to suffer the effects of failing or is it to provide roads and protection in the form of military, police and firefighters. There is not plenty of money for both. There are many great examples the most recent being Greece and Russia (with China starting to show signs of failing as well) where this has been proven.

I believe it's "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Again, priorities. True. Need we really consider whether or not the people starving is a priority...

Now we get to the real issue. Liberals claim to care, claim to be selfless, but when it comes to the where the rubber meets the road they feel no responsibility for their fellow man, no compassion for their neighbor. The do feel guilty when they see someone in need, so they figure out a way to take from someone else so they don’t have to think about it.

A ridiculous mischaracterization. Plenty of liberals care. Plenty don't. Same goes for the republicans. One party though has made part of it's platform about actually doing something about the issue. The other talks of bootstraps.

Not really. They are told they cannot make more than a certain amount or else they lose their assistance, which they have been taught they cannot live without.

How is this being taught? It's easy to see that most people get by without assistance.

This not only enslaves the person who the money is being taken from it enslaves the person being “assisted” as it virtually assures they will always have to have that assistance.

Nonsense, plenty of people needed temporary assistance, got it, and then were able to manage for themselves. Many people grew up as children with parents on assistance and now don't need it.

I have already discussed other freedoms that are taken, but they don’t mean that much to you.

No, you really haven't.

I notice you conveniently disregard the lush lives of the liberals. You know, the ones who feel no responsibility to their neighbor and yet feel compelled to ensure that the rest of us ensure they don’t need to either.

You should really take that sentence out back and shoot it...just to put it out of its misery.

If you are trying to say that some (or many) liberals don't wish to give their money to help others...yep, that's true. Same goes for Republicans. The difference is the republicans are actively trying to pay even less by reducing those programs.

They try to dissuade others from pointing out their obvious lack of compassion by arguing what you are arguing.

There are more costs to overhead than administrative. The information you posted does not include buildings, building maintenance, vehicles and vehicle maintenance (though there is a line for transportation) and pensions, to name a few. This is why the estimate is much higher than the published numbers.

Whatever the truth of that may or may not be, (some of those things may be included in "administrative costs"),it doesn't change the law that allows charities to use up to 90% of their money strictly on administrative costs.

The 6% the government uses leaves more money than the 20%-89% that most charities use.

I thought it was the farmers who were in trouble? They were growing the food and then putting it in storage and letting it rot while their families starved?

Yes, it was the farmers. Their kids had persistent problems with malnutrition. You can't just feed a kid corn, or beans, or soy, and expect them to get the proper nutrients.

When the price of commodities plummeted it meant the farmers weren't getting enough money from their crops to properly feed their kids. While yes others were out of work and whatnot...for them the good news was that food was cheap.

[alismith]

Kad, almost every time you use the term, "liberal," you use the term, "republican" as its opposite.

I always thought that "conservative" was the opposite of "liberal" and that "republican" was the opposite of "democrat".....

[Kadmos]

Kad, almost every time you use the term, "liberal," you use the term, "republican" as its opposite.

I always thought that "conservative" was the opposite of "liberal" and that "republican" was the opposite of "democrat".....

You are right of course. Part of it is just responding to how others use it. I used to hate it when people did that. For me the Democrats don't really follow the ideals of "liberalism", and I'm certain that in many ways Republicans don't follow the principals of conservatism.

In case it was unclear, the Democrats favor social programs, the Republicans seem not to.

Whereas I think liberalism takes no opinion, and conservatism is generally against.

[308]

Now we get to the real issue. Liberals claim to care, claim to be selfless, but when it comes to the where the rubber meets the road they feel no responsibility for their fellow man, no compassion for their neighbor. The do feel guilty when they see someone in need, so they figure out a way to take from someone else so they don’t have to think about it.

Had you just posted this at the beginning instead of acting as if your position of neglect and theft was morally superior this conversation would have stopped at

+100%

That has always been my experience when talking with liberal minded folks. Kad for example appears to feign compassion towards the needy but has yet to share how he opens his wallet on a regular basis to back it up.

[308]

A ridiculous mischaracterization. Plenty of liberals care. Plenty don't. Same goes for the republicans. One party though has made part of it's platform about actually doing something about the issue.

I'm sure you are right when a blanket statement is used. Credit due to the Obamas for example. Then give a relatively decent, albeit small, percentage of their gross income to charity, but the conversation changes when it comes down to individuals like us in this thread. Those in the discussion should be able to back up their claims of compassion towards others.

[Kadmos]

+100%

That has always been my experience when talking with liberal minded folks. Kad for example appears to feign compassion towards the needy but has yet to share how he opens his wallet on a regular basis to back it up.

I grew up in a very charitable household. My parents "adopted" 2 children through what was then called the Christian Children's fund...you know the old "For the price of a cup of coffee a day..." My mother helped organize food drives. My dad offered up a few days a month as a doc at a free clinic. The household gave money, and my bother and I pitched in collecting for food drives, and helping with various types of work.

I've tried to honor that upbringing. Do I do as much as I really can, no...probably not. But I do try. A lot of the happiest and most fulfilling times in my life were when I was working at charity, whether that was going door to door collecting can with the boy scouts, or spending several days in a row filling up and stacking sandbags trying to save other people's homes (total strangers) during the flood of 93, or just helping someone with some roadside auto repair.

Just to be clear, that has nothing to do with liberal, conservative, democrat, republican...it's just about trying to be a decent person. People under any of those 4 labels are willing to do similar. And people under all 4 aren't.

However, only people under one of those labels...Democrats, have doing so as part of their stated official party platform.

[ltorlo64]

However, only people under one of those labels...Democrats, have doing so as part of their stated official party platform.

No they are not. They are forcing others to pay for what they feel guilty about and for what they themselves, will not contribute to (in any other case this would be called theft). Liberals feel good about it though, by calling it taxing to pay for social programs. By the way, I would not say Democrats, I would say liberals. However, since most Democrats are liberals, I will go with it.

[ltorlo64]

I believe it's "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

You quote this as a defense to your position that theft for redistribution is protected by our founding documents. This is not true, but it does make liberals feel justified as they steal from everyone else. Let’s take a look at the original intent or the words you are now attempting to misuse.

Justice – allowing people to live moral lives without government intervention, without government telling citizens how to worship, without government giving preferential treatment (this is one what we are really talking about here) to any class of people, without government taxing citizens for items that do not provide for things that can be used by all citizens.

Domestic Tranquility – Preventing government from confiscating property through taxes and unjust laws that lead the citizenry to not be secure in the property and effects.

Provide Common Defense – Provide military and police to defend the populace against encroachment by foreign and domestic powers that seek to remove justice and domestic tranquility.

Promote the General Welfare – Provide roads and protection of those roads, protect the citizens from unjust rules and laws, provide equal opportunity to succeed or fail, and prevent government from acting in a way that disadvantages any citizen (whether poor or rich, they are to be treated the same by government)

Secure the Blessings of Liberty – People are to live their lives as they see fit, within a moral construct (ie theft, murder, assault are illegal and are not allowed as they violate the preceding principles and remove liberty), with as little government interference as possible and then only for what is required to provide justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, and promote the general welfare as these enhance and ensure liberty.

Government taking money from one group of people to give to another group because government determines by some arbitrary measure that the second group does not have enough is violating the requirement to provide Justice, Domestic Tranquility, and Promoting the General Welfare. Charity, on the other hand, promotes each of these traits. Liberals, however, will just say baloney and continue to promote programs that forcefully take money from one group to provide for another in order to minimize (and in many cases prevent) the help liberals are required to provide.

Again, priorities. True. Need we really consider whether or not the people starving is a priority...

I think it is a priority, which is why I give to charities that provide food for the hungry. It is not a function of government and takes away from what they are supposed to be doing.

A ridiculous mischaracterization. Plenty of liberals care. Plenty don't. Same goes for the republicans. One party though has made part of it's platform about actually doing something about the issue. The other talks of bootstraps.

I didn’t mischaracterize, I pointed out what you wrote, which is that you, as a liberal don’t care. The programs you promote are so you don’t need to take care of your neighbor because you have pushed this off on someone else. This is what you wrote.

How is this being taught? It's easy to see that most people get by without assistance.

Let’s just take the ACA for example. Part of the government’s push for this program was to teach people that they could not afford health care unless the government paid for it. The same happens with almost all social programs.

Nonsense, plenty of people needed temporary assistance, got it, and then were able to manage for themselves. Many people grew up as children with parents on assistance and now don't need it.

While you say plenty, there are also plenty who use assistance from generation to generation, never getting off assistance and specifically living so that they will not lose their assistance. Seems like they have learned that they need assistance in order to survive. In order for them to learn they must have been taught (see above).

[quote]No, you really haven't.

I have, but you are so willing to give up your rights in order to get government protection you don’t acknowledge it.

You should really take that sentence out back and shoot it...just to put it out of its misery.

If you are trying to say that some (or many) liberals don't wish to give their money to help others...yep, that's true. Same goes for Republicans. The difference is the republicans are actively trying to pay even less by reducing those programs.

They try to dissuade others from pointing out their obvious lack of compassion by arguing what you are arguing.

If anything abdicating it to the government allows you to further not think about it, while still feeling that they are taken care of to a degree.

Conservative are actively trying to stop giving money to government for social programs, but not because we don’t care, but because we do care and we realize that government programs hurt more than help. They are full of corruption, they are inefficient, they cost much more than we get out of them, and they teach people that they are “owed” this assistance. None of these things are positives.

The only person who is arguing from the position of no compassion is the one who wrote “You have no "responsibility to take care of your neighbor".” “I like to think of my personal taxes as going to fund the parks. I can live with that and get on with my life. If it goes to feed kids...well, I'm cool with that also.” That person is arguing from a position of guilt. He would rather not even know that people in need exist, but sense they do he wants to take care of them with as little interaction and thought as possible.

Whatever the truth of that may or may not be, (some of those things may be included in "administrative costs"),it doesn't change the law that allows charities to use up to 90% of their money strictly on administrative costs.

The 6% the government uses leaves more money than the 20%-89% that most charities use.

It is impossible to know how much the government overhead is for social programs, what we know is, a lot of it is hidden, but you just disregard this as it does not fit your argument. I provide information that shows most charities have about 20% overhead and you are stuck on what the law allows. The charities I give to actually have an overhead cost of about 9-11%, much less than the government, even if it is only, only 70%. Your number of 6% for government is drastically under the actual amount of the overhead. But I realize from other posts that you don’t really care what your taxes are spent on as long as they are spend on something. (I like to think of my personal taxes as going to fund the parks. I can live with that and get on with my life. If it goes to feed kids...well, I'm cool with that also.)

Yes, it was the farmers. Their kids had persistent problems with malnutrition. You can't just feed a kid corn, or beans, or soy, and expect them to get the proper nutrients.

When the price of commodities plummeted it meant the farmers weren't getting enough money from their crops to properly feed their kids. While yes others were out of work and whatnot...for them the good news was that food was cheap.

I have lived in rural, farming areas most of my life and I have worked on farms, both large and small, dairy and crop type farms. They not only have the crops that they grow for profit, they also have the crops and livestock that they grow for sustenance. I know of very few, if any that buy food from the grocery store. They will buy butter, salt, spices, but the basics come from their own farm. I have a hard time believing that farms in the 30s, when they were much smaller, were not doing the same thing.