|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I understand what you are saying, and you're probably right about a lot of them having irresponsible spending habits, and I agree that there is something wrong with rewarding such behavior, but if the alternative is to have people starving, then I'll go with the system we have.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Nah.... let them starve.
However, I doubt many would. Once the gravy train ends most would realize they had to work to eat. Those who didn't.... tough shit. Let them starve.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
It's kind of like an election here. You gotta choose which is the lesser of two evils. To me that would be welfare. To you it's starvation. I guess that's why they call people like me "bleeding heart" liberals.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I disagree. I have no wish to see anyone starve.
I believe that without handouts, faced with starvation, most would work. There would be little if any starvation and charity could handle that quite nicely.
That is not the same as your lesser of two evils statement.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
why can one person be forced to support another? by what right?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248629 - 01/17/04 02:13 PM (8 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Doesn't seem more wrong than any other use of tax dollars.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Doesn't seem more wrong than any other use of tax dollars.
Which is the point many of us make repeatedly... they are almost all wrong.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Doesn't seem more wrong than any other use of tax dollars.
Which is the point many of us make repeatedly... they are almost all wrong.
Even if they're used to invade sovereign nations and oust a dictator? 
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
While I've said often enough (pre-war) that I wish we wouldn't go in, the military is a constitutional use of tax dollars.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
While I've said often enough (pre-war) that I wish we wouldn't go in, the military is a constitutional use of tax dollars.
No, the NATIONAL DEFENSE is a constitutional use of tax dollars. I think it's pretty clear by now that that war was not fought in self-defense.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Many would make the arguement that pre-emptive stikes are a valid form of self defense. As it does not specify in the constitution that we must not strike until after we have been struck, there is a validity to that arguement.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
Doesn't seem more wrong than any other use of tax dollars.
probably not, but it's certainly one of the most wasteful and shortsighted. ethics aside, there is no practical reason to take someone's money and give it to another person. people spend their money on things. this employs people. taking their money away to help the unemployed is not good policy.
it's always wrong to take from someone. in a perfect world, everyone would be free from forceful intrusions on their life. the world is not perfect however, and the best we can hope to do is minimize coercion. doing this unfortunately usually requires some initiation of force by government. we need a good government to protect us from a bad one, but even a good government is not perfect, and it will initiate some force simply in order to exist and do its job. it should be as small as possible, and keep it's primary forceful acts to a minimum... it should tax only to pay for cops, courts, and military. it should not enforce an economic order, a social order, or a religious order. the only thing it should do is keep the peace, though it may need to tax in order to do so.
it is wrong to initiate force, and if the practice cannot be eliminated, it should at least be minimized.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I would point out how the claims that Iraq was a threat were pure bullshit, but I don't wish to derail this thread any further.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I started the thread. I don't mind. So, the proof that it was bullshit has been found? I must have missed that news story.
Perhaps you could link to it? Or did you mean to say that in your opinion they were bullshit?
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
Even if they're used to invade sovereign nations and oust a dictator?
saddam hussein was a threat to US national security. here you have a dictator who's government at one time was the biggest producer and stockpiler of chemical weapons in the world. he is an enemy of the united states and has sponsored terrorists before. he is also sitting on billions of dollars of oil which provide an enormous source of wealth.
would hussein never again produce and stockpile chemical (or nuclear) weapons? would he never give them to terrorists with intentions of using them to strike america? would he never use his vast oil wealth to sponsor terrorist acts?
he was a despot responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, he was in on-and-off violation of his cease-fire weapons agreements for more than a decade, and he was certainly a threat to US security. i have no qualms about taking him down, and no qualms about using tax dollars to do it.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
The fact that we still haven't found any WMD's should be proof enough that they weren't a threat to us. Even if we did find some eventually, they obviously didn't have enough to constitute a serious threat to us. Maybe they were a threat to Israel, but defense of other nations isn't mentioned in the constitution.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248698 - 01/17/04 02:41 PM (8 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i have no qualms about taking him down, and no qualms about using tax dollars to do it.
So you would initiate force against me to invade a sovereign nation, which was already crippled by sanctions?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
So you would initiate force against me to invade a sovereign nation, which was already crippled by sanctions?
yes.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248711 - 01/17/04 02:44 PM (8 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Well, then. That certainly makes me feel less guilty about initiating force against you to feed people.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 18,984
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
The fact that we still haven't found any WMD's should be proof enough that they weren't a threat to us.
You seem to be confusing "proof" and "evidence".
Quote:
Even if we did find some eventually, they obviously didn't have enough to constitute a serious threat to us.
That isn't necessarily so. IF they ever find any, a statement like that could only be made after seeing what and how much was found.
Quote:
Maybe they were a threat to Israel, but defense of other nations isn't mentioned in the constitution.
Actually... treaties are mentioned. There is no exemption for defense treaties that I'm aware of.
Being opposed to foreign aid, I'd rather we minded our own business. However, many say that defense treaties are minding our own business in the long term.
--------------------
Source: The Tax Foundation, based on IRS data
-----------------------------------
A thin-skinned Mod that deletes rates of himself that he doesn't like.
-----------------------------------
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
