bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
Let us be clear in regards to what we are arguing. It is not wealth distribution, it is forced wealth distribution. But even more specifically, we are talking about it via means of federal income taxes.
The notion that those who oppose such means are simply "greedy" is without merit. While it may be true in some cases, the fact that we Americans freely give enormous amounts of money and even time to charities and to others in need negates that argument.
Additionally, the notion that those who oppose an income tax are simply greedy assumes that all or even most of the money taken by income taxes is spent to help those less fortunate. As if the federal government is a charity organization. This is just simply not the case. While Social Security and Medicare make up the majority of the federal budget, enormous amounts of revenue are spent for other purposes, many of them lacking benefit to the American people. Is it any wonder that the first income tax imposed on the American people was meant to fund not the aiding of its people, but the murdering of its own people through means of warfare? And even today, the government spends hundreds of billions to murder people overseas. Something that not only doesn't benefit the American people, but endangers them, particularly when the resulting "blow-back" comes in the form of the murder of Americans here at home. Followed then only by the use of our own money to pay for the trampling of our own freedoms and liberties.
This is not only an inefficient use of our money, it is in too many cases, a dangerous use of our money.
Our government was formed specifically to protect the American people from itself. The entirety of the Bill of Rights is nothing short of our founders putting a straitjacket on the government they had formed. And while the Constitution was written in a way that allowed it to evolve, the message and ideals for which it stood were never meant to change.
My point here is that the mentality of our founders was undoubtedly that government is naturally and inevitably bad. A necessary evil. And our government was deemed an historical wonder because this idea proven with thousands of years of history was the very basis for which it was founded. Unfortunately, through time, while we still consider our government to be great, our understanding of why it is so has been greatly twisted. And this new perception of our government being good is wrapped around the idea that it is progress, and that the original ideas of our government are archaic. This is undoubtedly wrong, and historically speaking, the exact opposite is true. The empowering of our government will inevitably not result in benefit of the people, in the long run it will be the means in which we as a society perish. It is our lack of understanding history, our short-sightedness, and our nationalistic mentality that will bring an end to our society. We walk towards hell on ground made of good intentions.
The notion that those who oppose such means are simply "greedy" is without merit. While it may be true in some cases, the fact that we Americans freely give enormous amounts of money and even time to charities and to others in need negates that argument.
Additionally, the notion that those who oppose an income tax are simply greedy assumes that all or even most of the money taken by income taxes is spent to help those less fortunate. As if the federal government is a charity organization. This is just simply not the case. While Social Security and Medicare make up the majority of the federal budget, enormous amounts of revenue are spent for other purposes, many of them lacking benefit to the American people. Is it any wonder that the first income tax imposed on the American people was meant to fund not the aiding of its people, but the murdering of its own people through means of warfare? And even today, the government spends hundreds of billions to murder people overseas. Something that not only doesn't benefit the American people, but endangers them, particularly when the resulting "blow-back" comes in the form of the murder of Americans here at home. Followed then only by the use of our own money to pay for the trampling of our own freedoms and liberties.
This is not only an inefficient use of our money, it is in too many cases, a dangerous use of our money.
Our government was formed specifically to protect the American people from itself. The entirety of the Bill of Rights is nothing short of our founders putting a straitjacket on the government they had formed. And while the Constitution was written in a way that allowed it to evolve, the message and ideals for which it stood were never meant to change.
My point here is that the mentality of our founders was undoubtedly that government is naturally and inevitably bad. A necessary evil. And our government was deemed an historical wonder because this idea proven with thousands of years of history was the very basis for which it was founded. Unfortunately, through time, while we still consider our government to be great, our understanding of why it is so has been greatly twisted. And this new perception of our government being good is wrapped around the idea that it is progress, and that the original ideas of our government are archaic. This is undoubtedly wrong, and historically speaking, the exact opposite is true. The empowering of our government will inevitably not result in benefit of the people, in the long run it will be the means in which we as a society perish. It is our lack of understanding history, our short-sightedness, and our nationalistic mentality that will bring an end to our society. We walk towards hell on ground made of good intentions.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,061
- 14,474
- 146
Since so many are against weath distribution, Congress should pass laws that restrict a state to receive ONLY as many total federal dollars as that state pays in federal income tax. While that won't stop in-state wealth distribution, it will stop the folks in the red states from whining about supporting the blue states...oh wait a minute...they don't...it's just the opposite...
Well there are degrees of wealth redistribution. The real question is how much is enough? There has to be safety net for those disabled, single parent caring for children, and there are stuff like SS and other programs already. The problem is with the left leaning government we are going to have the next few years, how much more redistribution are we gonna have? Handing checks to those able people who just sit home? Handing checks to those who work only 20 hrs and enjoys the other 20 every week? Handing checks to those who work in easy job that doesn't require education, intelligence or hardwork?
The problem is that the man that makes $40,000.00 will be robbed blind by the democrats.
When was the last time that democrats gave anyone a tax cut?
When was the last time that democrats gave anyone a tax cut?
That's delusional....of course I am paying more...
Really..let's see...I am going back to 39.6% tax braket..that 4.6% higher
not to mention the increase social security taxes..another 2-4%
Plus the cost to the small business I work for....nice
I have been saying this for months
Let's Obama said wealthy initailly was $100K...then people were like WTF...so he increased to $250K
Oops right before the election..Biden talks about $150K and Obama in his infomercial said $200K
Beware middle class the pain will come to you as well
My hope is the realization that Obama is well educated and he made comments suggesting he MAY need to reassess his plans....he is aware a tax increase of any kind when the economy is getting killed runs the risk of hurting small business(jobs) and spenders
I am not talking trickle down economics...if things are bad and we spread the wealth....do you think people will open the pocketbooks to spending with what the avg person will get nope....
Also, Obama set himself up for a plan toward a second term already trying to get people to realize he will need 8yrs to do things...
The real issue is how far from center will he try t ogovern and will he stand up to those 2 morons...Pelosi and Reid(they are so far left) there will be no way to rein in spending with those too
Can someone explain how the Dems in Congress with a 15-18% approval rating got away with no responsibility for all the issue we face...both parties are to blame
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,061
- 14,474
- 146
IMO, the Congress's approval rating is so low because the average citizen (and those on the right too dishonest to admit it) either don't understand or won't accept the fact that inspite of the Dem's slight majority in the House and tie in the Senate, they can't force any legislation. Either they get vetoed by Bush and don't have enough votes to override the veto, OR, they just can't get enough Repubs to cross the aisle and vote with them in the first place.
It's pretty dishonest of the Repubs to blame the inaction on the Dems when their party is the cause of the inaction...
It's pretty dishonest of the Repubs to blame the inaction on the Dems when their party is the cause of the inaction...
and yet you neever lept to the gop defense when it was reversed with the previous congress.
Go figure??/
Thats ok boomer, I suppose we all do that.
Really ..yup all the issues are the Repub....typically partisan look at it
Let's see so everything is the Repub fault....Dems only offer excellent bills with no pork barrel crap...they spend with value mindset
C'mon.....look in the mirror the problem is the 2 parties are so screwed up and never look to truly fix an issue for the better of our country. What we need is a truly viable 3rd party to balance these morons
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,061
- 14,474
- 146
I actually agree with both Daniel and Neal...the problem is partisan politics on BOTH sides of the aisle. When it comes to pork, the repubs seem to have a distinct advantage over the dems...and the list of states that get more in federal money than they pay in taxes is proof...
It's a sad thing, but our government has moved from "What's best for the country," to "What's best for the party."
It's a sad thing, but our government has moved from "What's best for the country," to "What's best for the party."
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 43
- 91
There is a difference between feeling a moral obligation to help and therefore choosing of your own free will to donate time and money to charities as opposed to being forced by law to give to a large and inefficient government bureaucracy.
ZV
So true. The government takes enough to actually get something done. It's no accident that America is the richest nation ever to exist. It took taxes and built an scientific industrial education revolution. Had we depended on noblesse oblige we'd still be in the dark ages.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter