To all you people who hate welfare

[tomdemaine]

You don't think that people should get money for doing nothing right? So logically you would be in favour of a 100% estate tax for all households. There is no way that you can agrue against welfare checks for lazy people and still be for rich kids freeloading off of hardworking parents. I believe that you should have to earn every penny in this life and no-one should be allowed to get rich just cos daddy died. Tax estates 100% and give the money directly to people who work for a living. Bring on the death tax!

[lastchance]

Zzzzz.... You are rebutting a very weak point made by idiots who hate welfare. The good arguments all have to do with economics.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think that people should get money for doing nothing right? So logically you would be in favour of a 100% estate tax for all households. There is no way that you can agrue against welfare checks for lazy people and still be for rich kids freeloading off of hardworking parents. I believe that you should have to earn every penny in this life and no-one should be allowed to get rich just cos daddy died. Tax estates 100% and give the money directly to people who work for a living. Bring on the death tax!

[/ QUOTE ]


Paying taxes != parents leaving money to their kids. Thats the simplest way of putting it.

[lehighguy]

Leaving money to your kids is no different from spending it while your alive. It's your choice what you want to do with your money. I wouldn't want to raise my kids that way, but if others want to its thier choice.

[tomdemaine]

My post was partly in response to the I hate poor people OOT thread but how about this. 100% inheritance tax, all the money goes into a big pool which the government isn't allowed to touch so they can't waste it on stupid things nobody wants (for natedogg). Then at the end of the year it is all paid out to every single person that worked and paid some income tax. If you paid a lot of tax you get a lot of money back a little tax a little back. You can't argue against it from an economics point of view, cutting taxes boosts the economy right? And you can't ague against it from an ideological point of view money as flows from the undeserving to the deserving.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
hen at the end of the year it is all paid out to every single person that worked and paid some income tax. If you paid a lot of tax you get a lot of money back a little tax a little back. You can't argue against it from an economics point of view,

[/ QUOTE ]

Very easy to argue against this as a 100% inheritance tax would have some very real negative economic efffects.

[ QUOTE ]
And you can't ague against it from an ideological point of view money as flows from the undeserving to the deserving.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hope you dont believe that statement.

[lehighguy]

I'm not argueing that it wouldn't be fairer, I'm argueing the government doesn't have the right. Choosing to leave behind money to your children and buying a yacht while your alive are two different choices. You have the right to do either with your money. I could argue that hiring your children a physics tutor gives them an unfair advantage over a poorer child. That's live. Parents want the best for thier children, and part of the best is unfair advantages. I think parents that choose to spend thier money helping thier children get a good education, start a business, buy a house, etc. are a lot more responsible then those that choose to spend thier money on themselves while thier alive. So I don't see why we should penalize them.

[BadBoyBenny]

How about this?

Rich parents invest all of their money in a trust which is equally shared controlled by their dependents and owned by the collective but there is an impicit understanding that said rich parent will make decisions about the trust while alive.

Or...

Rich parent gives all money to kids a retirement age with the implicit understanding that rich kids will cover any expenses that the now-broke rich parent can't get through government programs.


This would be very hard to implement with severely resticting the way people can give money to each other.

[MMMMMM]

It's the parents' money and they should be able to do what they want with it--just like you should be able to spend your money however you see fit...or even go throw it in the river if you wish.

You people who would try to "order" society as you think best, are a principle cause of "society's" problems all over the world. If everybody just minded their own damn business the world would go around a great deal more smoothly than it does.

Whether some parents decide to give their money to a bum, or to their kids, or gamble it away, or spend it on a fishing boat, or invest it, or donate it to a group of monkeys, or leave it to their CAT, is just none of your damn business. The sooner you learn this fundamental concept the better off you will be in life.

What others decide to do with what is THEIRS is NOT YOUR business. Got it? Seriously, it is people who think like you that cause most of the problems in the world--meddling busybodies trying to force others to conform to their views of what they think is right. BUT...they each think SOMETHING DIFFERENT is best--so see the problem?

Live and let live, and don't you give a damn about what anyone else is doing (unless they are harming someone else). This is the essence of wisdom. Whether or not someone gives his money to the Foundation for The Education Of Goldfish should concern you about as much as what color of worm the blue jay prefers for breakfast.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the parents' money and they should be able to do what they want with it--just like you should be able to spend your money however you see fit...or even go throw it in the river if you wish.

You people who would try to "order" society as you see fit, are a principle cause of "society's" problems all over the world. If everybody just minded their own damn business the world would go around a great deal more smoothly than it does.

Whether some parents decide to give their money to a bum, or to their kids, or gamble it away, or spend it on a fishing boat, or invest it, or donate it to a group of monkeys, or leave it to their CAT, is just none of your damn business. The sooner you learn this fundamental concept the better off you will be in life.

What others decide to do with what is THEIRS is NOT YOUR business. Got it? Seriously, it is people who think like you that cause most of the problems in the world--meddling busybodies trying to force others to conform to their views of what they think is right. BUT...they each think SOMETHING DIFFERENT is best--so see the problem?

Live and let live, and don't you give a damn about what anyone else is doing (unless they are harming someone else). This is the essence of wisdom. Whether or not someone gives his money to the Foundation for The Education Of Goldfish should concern you about as much as what color of worm the blue jay prefers to have for breakfast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a trust fund baby to me. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

Not even close, hetron...I'm no trust fund baby...but I believe in freedom. Too bad so many others don't.

Also, you might get a better idea of where I am coming from if you read some Thoreau and some Chuang Tsu.

People screw a lot of things up and they especially screw things up for other people. Just...leave others alone...why is that so hard for so much of the human race to understand (throughout the ages)??? Why do people want to "rule" the world?

Me, I just want my own little space and freedom. Why do so many people feel such a need to control others? It's really warped or sick, from my perspective--and has done untold damage and caused immeasurable sufferings throughout the course of human history.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Not even close, hetron...but I believe in freedom. Too bad so many others don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easier to believe in freedom when your parental unit gave you the dough.

[lehighguy]

There are MANY of us who don't have wealthy parents, but believe in economic freedom. In fact, a majority of people who believe in economic freedom aren't wealthy, based on the fact that only a very small portion of the population is wealthy and yet nearly half of American's support more economic freedom.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It's easier to believe in freedom when your parental unit gave you the dough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been dead broke a few times and hated it but I never stopped believing in freedom. I really don't see the relation of which you speak. Either you believe in freedom or you don't.

I certainly didn't believe in it any less when I had zero cents to my name and nothing to eat but dried lima beans for three days (late in 1979, at eighteen years of age), and had to chop wood all winter to heat an uninsulated cabin in the north woods of Maine. Hell, I probably believed in it more then. Or about twelve years later when I went broke playing poker (I'd been playing a few years by then) and had no place to stay and nothing but a couple handfuls of change and had to sleep overnight in an abandoned unfurnished unheated apartment, and had to get out before the owner (who I didn't know) arrived in the morning. Damn it was cold that night. And my car was nearly on its last legs too.

Seriously I sometimes think a lot of the leftists are just a big bunch of wussies who think that everyone else is just as wussy as them. Not saying that is you, hetron, but jeez being poor in America sucks but it isn't the end of the world unless you just sit there and wallow in it. You can get out of it through some diligence for a while. It's a temporary condition unless you choose to allow it to become permanent.

That's why I don't much believe in welfare but I do think there should be work farms where a person can go to work 50-60 hours/week with room and board paid so they can save up like 5K-10K in 6 months. Something so people can get back on their feet if they are really willing to buckle down and work and not cause trouble and not do drugs or drink. I think these facilities should be in each region of the country, as a form of social safety net that really MEANS something and provides a vehicle for someone to get a roll together (not just subsist).

[ACPlayer]

Sounds like a trust fund baby to me

Hard to see him in any kind of real job.

[lehighguy]

I hate Bush and the repubs, but sometimes your peoples arrogance makes him look humble by contrast. If you want to know why your losing elections its right in your response here.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
There are MANY of us who don't have wealthy parents, but believe in economic freedom. In fact, a majority of people who believe in economic freedom aren't wealthy, based on the fact that only a very small portion of the population is wealthy and yet nearly half of American's support more economic freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what percentage of people who believe in freedom are on welfare?

[ACPlayer]

That's why I don't much believe in welfare but I do think there should be work farms where a person can go to work 50-60 hours/week with room and board paid so they can save up like 5K-10K in 6 months.

Work farms!?!?!?!?! Designed to save $5k to $10K in 6 months. There will be no one left to flip burgers. Those guys can barely make ends meet -- let alone save money.

It would be cheaper to outsource work farms to China!!!

You have written masses of strange words and thoughts. This takes the cake.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I don't much believe in welfare but I do think there should be work farms where a person can go to work 50-60 hours/week with room and board paid so they can save up like 5K-10K in 6 months.

Work farms!?!?!?!?! Designed to save $5k to $10K in 6 months. There will be no one left to flip burgers. Those guys can barely make ends meet -- let alone save money.

It would be cheaper to outsource work farms to China!!!

You have written masses of strange words and thoughts. This takes the cake.

[/ QUOTE ]

6 months, 10k, = about 10 bucks or so an hour for a 40 hour work week, if we're talking gross pay, half that for 5k. Not terribly unrealistic.

[ACPlayer]

Your reply while accurate does not address the point being made about people getting money for doing nothing.

[ACPlayer]

Could I suggest that if Lehigh offers a course in English grammer you take it?

Just an arrogant suggestion.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply while accurate does not address the point being made about people getting money for doing nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then missed that point. You hid it incredibly well. /images/graemlins/smile.gif M6 didnt advocate giving it to them for nothing.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's easier to believe in freedom when your parental unit gave you the dough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been dead broke a few times and hated it but I never stopped believing in freedom. I really don't see the relation of which you speak. Either you believe in freedom or you don't.

I certainly didn't believe in it any less when I had zero cents to my name and nothing to eat but dried lima beans for three days (late in 1979, at eighteen years of age), and had to chop wood all winter to heat an uninsulated cabin in the north woods of Maine. Hell, I probably believed in it more then. Or about twelve years later when I went broke playing poker (I'd been playing a few years by then) and had no place to stay and nothing but a couple handfuls of change and had to sleep overnight in an abandoned unfurnished unheated apartment, and had to get out before the owner (who I didn't know) arrived in the morning. Damn it was cold that night. And my car was nearly on its last legs too.

Seriously I sometimes think a lot of the leftists are just a big bunch of wussies who think that everyone else is just as wussy as them. Not saying that is you, hetron, but jeez being poor in America sucks but it isn't the end of the world unless you just sit there and wallow in it. You can get out of it through some diligence for a while. It's a temporary condition unless you choose to allow it to become permanent.

That's why I don't much believe in welfare but I do think there should be work farms where a person can go to work 50-60 hours/week with room and board paid so they can save up like 5K-10K in 6 months. Something so people can get back on their feet if they are really willing to buckle down and work and not cause trouble and not do drugs or drink. I think these facilities should be in each region of the country, as a form of social safety net that really MEANS something and provides a vehicle for someone to get a roll together (not just subsist).

[/ QUOTE ]

I was joking around about the trust fund baby thing (I only said it because I have heard similar arguments from other trust fundies in the past). I didn't mean to try and personally malign you.

Personally your story sounds interesting. That being said, while your personal struggles may have helped make you the person you are today, I don't know if that would have been all that great if you had women and children in tow. A lot of social programs we have in place today are to protect children from the outrageous slings and arrows of fortune, to make sure they get a fair shake regardless of their parents own misfortunes and/or lunacy.

Note: I disagree with the OP's statement, though I have a feeling it is tongue-in-cheek.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think that people should get money for doing nothing right? So logically you would be in favour of a 100% estate tax for all households. There is no way that you can agrue against welfare checks for lazy people and still be for rich kids freeloading off of hardworking parents. I believe that you should have to earn every penny in this life and no-one should be allowed to get rich just cos daddy died. Tax estates 100% and give the money directly to people who work for a living. Bring on the death tax!

[/ QUOTE ]
people taking time posting things like this on a forum dedicated to poker strategy make me feel good because i know the games will always be beatable, no matter how much some people study.

fim

edit- also, i like the death tax, that's how bad this is.

[ACPlayer]

Not sure which planet you are on.

He wants a work farm SO THEY can save up for a ROLL. I guess graduates from this go into 6M's only job possibilities -- play poker. Go broke and then back to the farm.

The federal min wage is $5 or so. Are you aware that there are parts of the country where people have a tough time getting these jobs?

No one on federal min wage can SAVE 5000 in 6 months. Put this program in place and you will see lines from here to eternity with people trying to get in.

What the devil is a WORK FARM anyway? Some sort of make work program straight out of a russian cooperative.

This has to be the silliest idea on the planet. Well meaning, but dumb.

I invite 6M to flesh out what exactly this work farm is? Who runs it? What's the work? Who pays the workers?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Not even close, hetron...I'm no trust fund baby...but I believe in freedom. Too bad so many others don't.

Also, you might get a better idea of where I am coming from if you read some Thoreau and some Chuang Tsu.

People screw a lot of things up and they especially screw things up for other people. Just...leave others alone...why is that so hard for so much of the human race to understand (throughout the ages)??? Why do people want to "rule" the world?

Me, I just want my own little space and freedom. Why do so many people feel such a need to control others? It's really warped or sick, from my perspective--and has done untold damage and caused immeasurable sufferings throughout the course of human history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, do you feel nations should abide by the same credo?

[ACPlayer]

In this particular sub-thread there is no discussion of 6M's proposals.

[lehighguy]

My dad was out of work for two years when he had his heart attack. They threatened to take our house. We barely had enough food to eat. We had to sell the old piano we had even though I had taken lessons for several years and was still learning because we needed the money.

My dad never took a welfare check that whole time. Even though he payed taxes for many years. He said it was stealing to take money from other people.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I invite 6M to flesh out what exactly this work farm is? Who runs it? What's the work? Who pays the workers?

[/ QUOTE ]

A work farm or factory: where you can go and work like 60 hours/week and live in dormitory/barracks conditions. Cheap housing and cheap but healthy institutional-style meals. Lights out at 9:30 PM and reveille at 5:30 AM. No drugs, drinking, sex, or fighting--or you get booted out on your ear. Sunday is rest day. No talking after lights out.

Factory and/or farm work is available. Pay is low, minimum wage or lower, but room and board are free. You can work long hours to save extra money. Nobody can stay longer than 6 months in any 20-month period.

This could be run as a for-profit or not-for-profit, state-run, or state contracted out, enterprise. The economies of scale in cheap housing, cheap cafeteria-style food, and cheap labor, would help make the whole thing possible.

One of the biggest problems that the homeless or low-income workers face is that they have no savings to get a car or apartment. This would give people a chance to get ahead a bit, to get a modest foundation under them, and to get out of the worst financial spots in life.

The produce or goods could be sold on the open market. Economies of scale, and cheap labor, would make the whole thing possible. I believe such regional centers should be set up around the U.S. Perhaps eight or ten such facilities would be about right.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, hetron, the wives and kids are an issue as well. Personally I don't think anyone with less than $300,000 in savings should be having kids in the first place.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Not even close, hetron...I'm no trust fund baby...but I believe in freedom. Too bad so many others don't.

Also, you might get a better idea of where I am coming from if you read some Thoreau and some Chuang Tsu.

People screw a lot of things up and they especially screw things up for other people. Just...leave others alone...why is that so hard for so much of the human race to understand (throughout the ages)??? Why do people want to "rule" the world?

Me, I just want my own little space and freedom. Why do so many people feel such a need to control others? It's really warped or sick, from my perspective--and has done untold damage and caused immeasurable sufferings throughout the course of human history.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Out of curiosity, do you feel nations should abide by the same credo?

[/ QUOTE ]

The credo encompasses the principle that others should be free to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting others. A vicious totalitarian regime very definitely is violating the base principle--as Saddam's regime did--just as, on smaller scale, a man beating his wife with a baseball bat is doing. Neither should be permitted to continue if it is feasible to stop them.

There is a vast difference between, on the one hand, trying to proactively order people or society, or on the other hand letting them do as they wish (as long as they aren't hurting others). I would think you can easily see the distinction (though some apparently can't).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a trust fund baby to me
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to see him in any kind of real job.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACPlayer, I have had several real jobs, and even a small business. They just didn't last all that long. I have also worked very hard when I was working. Hopefully though I have learned from my mistakes and won't make the mistake of having a real job again.

[ACPlayer]

I offer the following comments:

1. Would you buy goods purchased from a factory where you knew that there is turn over every six months of every employee? Just as they learnt their role in the work and got good at it they are out the door. I would not.

2. You have people who have neither the skills nor the education to find a regular job put into communal housing and you expect no drugs, drinking or sex.

3. Lets say it is state run. A state you would not trust to spend your tax dollars, you want to run a factory?

4. Lets say it is private. You want the workers to work for an employer who is making money off the enterprise but they are forced to live under certain conditions. Given your libertarian declarations -- would it not be better than they just get a salary and DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES where they live and who they eat with and what they eat.

This is just a start.

I suggest, you quietly drop defending this line. Fold now! it is a profitable play.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Would you buy goods purchased from a factory where you knew that there is turn over every six months of every employee? Just as they learnt their role in the work and got good at it they are out the door. I would not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt you know which factory made much of what you buy. Also, it's rather hard to screw up a pair of socks or a head of lettuce.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You have people who have neither the skills nor the education to find a regular job put into communal housing and you expect no drugs, drinking or sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not expect, demand. Otherwise they get the boot, pronto. Also, there won't be any alcohol on the premises anyway. The entire facility is to be run with the efficiency and sparseness of a military barracks during basic training (just without the drill sergeant shouting in your face, though). Don't like it? Grab your clothes and toiletries and leave. Not a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Lets say it is state run. A state you would not trust to spend your tax dollars, you want to run a factory?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state seems to do OK with making license plates does it not? And don't tell me those are made by a better average grade of worker.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Lets say it is private. You want the workers to work for an employer who is making money off the enterprise but they are forced to live under certain conditions. Given your libertarian declarations -- would it not be better than they just get a salary and DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES where they live and who they eat with and what they eat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course having a career would be better. What's that got to do with it? I am not recommending this for everyone. If someone has fallen on really hard times, it might be nice to have this as an option.

[ QUOTE ]
This is just a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Details can be worked out. Your summary has been provided.

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
My dad was out of work for two years when he had his heart attack. They threatened to take our house. We barely had enough food to eat. We had to sell the old piano we had even though I had taken lessons for several years and was still learning because we needed the money.

My dad never took a welfare check that whole time. Even though he payed taxes for many years. He said it was stealing to take money from other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. Your dad should have felt no shame in taking the money. He paid taxes to fund those programs, so when he was down on his luck they would be there to support him.

There is such a stigma surrounding government aid and there need not be one.

[Cyrus]

They hate poor people - period !

Let 'em eat cake ! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2561337&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[lehighguy]

He wouldn't of paid for those programs if he had the option. But he doesn't. He can vote against them, but if a majority support it they can send federal agents to his house to arrest him for tax evasion if he doesn't pay into them.

My Dad took money from the sick fund, which everyone in his local contributed to each week in case someone got sick. But this is an entirely different matter as it is voluntary and everyone in the local agreed on it. It's not that he is against helping those in need, or contributing to a program, he just doesn't want to be forced into it by the government if he chooses not too.

[Jakesta]

So your dad would never consider attending a public college or sending you to one, Since those are paid for by tax funds(about 60%).

[lehighguy]

My Dad believes in public education. So do I. I went to public school until I was 18. Though I support school vouchers and don't think the government should actually run the schools, merely provide each child with adequate funds to attend a school of their choice.

My Dad would also allow the police to arrest a criminal who entered his home, or allow firefighters to fight a fire.

But these things are entirely different from providing welfare to adults.

[Jakesta]

I am talking about public UNIVERSITIES. University of California, University of Florida, etc.

And your dad sounds like a really cold person who didn't have an ounce of compassion in his body. Maybe he passed the traits on to you.

[lehighguy]

I attend a private university, and it costs quite a lot less then public school (even though tuition is $40,000+ a year).
Private schools tend to give a lot of financial aid and it is very easy to attend at a low cost if your parents don't have a lot of money.

Education for all provides immense social good, and unlike adults children haven't yet had the chance to make a life for themselves. Children are entitled to certain basic needs and education is one of them.

[Jakesta]

Not everyone is eligible for financial aid. Rich kids don't need it and poor kids get most of it. The middle class are the ones squeezed. And if you think that most private schools just dole out tons of aid to people whose parents have a combined income of 60k a year then you are wrong. Very wrong. Yet paying 30k for their child's college education at a private school would be quite expensive, and would take a large chunk of their income.

[lehighguy]

My parents make 60k a year combined.

College covers way more then half of my tuition. And I'm a single child. I'm told if I had siblings I'd get even more.

I pay less at my private school then I would to attend my state school, and my private school has one of the highest tuitions in the country.

I know a guy whos full-time job is helping people get financial aid and scholorships. He says that his experience has been the same for nearly all the people he's met. Something I corroborate with my own experience.

I have my own problems with the financial aid system (like how it punishes earning money on the side), but I find it very generous. You do however have to do your fair share of work in making sure you get a fair share.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
They hate poor people - period !

Let 'em eat cake ! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2561337&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't try to attribute this idiotic opinion to anyone but Alobar. You should be ashamed.

[tomdemaine]

All I'm saying is when Paris Hilton's dad dies lets take the extra $2,000,000,000 that she didn't earn and doesn't need and give it to the guys who works 10 hours a day for 30K a year who for some reason are forced to pay stupidly high levels of income tax.

undeserving -----$$$------> deserving

[iraise50]

Donald Trump, in his book "The America We Deserve" he proposed a one time tax on persons and estates worth...I believe 100k or more. The amount was to be a one time tax, and would cover the national debt, saving our nation a crapload of interest and making the USA a much better place to invest/live/work in.

I don't think anything approaching 100% estate tax is reasonable. Welfare isn't the answer either. We have evolved from racism in this country to classism. We need the rough areas to be made safe as the rich areas, and we need to be sending children to school, and from there, to college. Helping a poor family get by isn't the answer, helping them to become totaly self-sustaining is. As for the total estate deal...you want to give your kids something to make thier life better. If you had kids and you died today...you wouldn't want everything you had to be confiscated.

[ACPlayer]

... and I am not talking about the socks.

[Sifmole]

Nah, it wouldn't.

People who are rich enough to have a large estate, are also smart enough to hire people smart enough to defeat an estate tax.

Money makes money, and money keeps money.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I don't think anyone with less than $300,000 in savings should be having kids in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

What happened to the live and let die attitude from earlier in this thread /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Those kids without that sum behind them have only to go and work in some factory or on some farm if they want some money to start saving so they can have a family right?

[ACPlayer]

6M has principled attitudes that apply to only others thinking.

I gotta stop bashing that "man" he provides much amusement /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I don't think anyone with less than $300,000 in savings should be having kids in the first place
-------------------------------------------------------------

What happened to the live and let die attitude from earlier in this thread /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Those kids without that sum behind them have only to go and work in some factory or on some farm if they want some money to start saving so they can have a family right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges and non-sequiturs /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't try to attribute this idiotic opinion to anyone but Alobar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things :

First of all, what you're proposing cannot be seriously considered. How on earth are we supposed to claim that one man's opinion is only one man's opinion? A reasonable person would accept that Alobar's take on the poor is not a unique perspective, but shared by many people. How many, I do not know.

Second, Alobar's opinion of the poor is not always indicative of a conservative mind frame! We have come to a point that the poor are made out by media and politicians alike as some kind of aliens that get on our nerves! Alobar himself has often expressed opinions that would place him far from the conservative spectrum.

Methinks, my allusion to the Marie Antoinette infamous invitation to her people ("Let 'em eat cake!") is accurate and also indicative of the current attitude towards the destitute displayed by a large part of American society. It started in Reagan's time, with all that glorifying of selfishness and greed, and expanded beyond Wall Street to infect the mainstream.


Link to Alobar's post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2561337&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is when Paris Hilton's dad dies lets STEAL the extra $2,000,000,000 that she didn't earn and doesn't need and give it to the guys who works 10 hours a day for 30K a year who for some reason are forced to pay stupidly high levels of income tax.

undeserving -----$$$------> deserving

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is when Paris Hilton's dad dies lets STEAL the extra $2,000,000,000 that she didn't earn and doesn't need and give it to the guys who works 10 hours a day for 30K a year who for some reason are forced to pay stupidly high levels of income tax.

undeserving -----$$$------> deserving

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn straight! Screw her. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Edit :
This is no more theft than all tax is theft. It is simply a way of rearranging the system so that the undeserving pay for a greater proportion of government spending than the deserving. You can still agrue that that spending should be as low as possible.

[andyfox]

"or leave it to their CAT"

You go too far, sir.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I personally have no problem with people getting money for doing nothing if the person giving that money does so voluntarily. If I had a few million and wanted to give it to my grandson, the government has no right to tell me I can't. I earned it, they didn't. It's my property.

I also have no problem with welfare if it comes with certain work requirements and is temporary.

But, I don't "hate" welfare. I just think it doesn't really help poor people (the "give a fish/teach to fish" argument). Also, I oppose welfare to businesses as well.

[MMMMMM]

I believe the estate tax is theft, even if legalized theft. Reason: Income taxes were already paid on that money (presumably), and what the estate tax does is confiscate assets. Likewise, the gift tax (over a certain amount) is (legalized) theft as well. And just because it is legal doesn't imply it is not in principle theft (for instance, imagine a law that required all blue-eyed persons to pay $10,000 a year to a fund set up for brown-eyed persons. In some countries that might be legal, but it would still be theft in principle and action.)

What if Mr. Hilton decided to transfer his assets to his daughter during his lifetime, instead of after death? Do you really think the government should be able to stop that? Don't you think it is HIS money???

Also, you still seem to not get the larger point that forcing society to change to accomodate YOUR vision of fairness is generally a misguided effort. Reason: look at all the kooky ideas proposed by others! Do you really think your ideas are much less kooky and far more reasonable, than their ideas? Do you realize that others also think they know what is best for YOU (and I guarantee, that isn't usually the same as what you think is best for you). Therefore, it is generally best to pass no federal laws beyond the minimum required for ensurance of protection of life, liberty, and property--and on the local level, laws for maintenance of necessary infrastructure and services. Granted some laws must be passed exceeeding those sparse guidelines, but keeping them to a minimum would be best for everyone except the lawyers. Laws should be a last resort, not a means of trying to force everyone else to conform to your vision of how the universe should be.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"or leave it to their CAT"

[/ QUOTE ]

You go too far, sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I really should have said DOG

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
And your dad sounds like a really cold person who didn't have an ounce of compassion in his body. Maybe he passed the traits on to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

If someone held a gun to your head and made you give someone else $$, would your gift be compassionate? If the answer is "no", which it should be, then nothing about government welfare could be compassionate. Being compassionate requires making a voluntary choice, giving others in need your OWN money (and not voulnteering the money of others).

I would never accept welfare money either--I cannot accept something as my own that was forcibly taken from others.

[ACPlayer]

Reason: Income taxes were already paid on that money

This is only partially true - for imcome taxes as presently defined. Appreciated assets are not taxed if there is no estate tax and the tax basis for the assets is raised to the current value for the heirs.

Also, you still seem to not get the larger point that forcing society to change to accomodate YOUR vision of fairness is generally a misguided effort.

THis is patently false and undesirable. Plenty of desirable changes have come about from people who have pushed really hard to change society to meet their thinking. MLK forced society to change to accommodate HIS vision or has he put it HIS dream. If someone has an idea that HE thinks would make society better it is his responsibility to try and make that change. Whether he succeeds or not depends on the society at large.


Therefore it is generally best to pass no federal laws beyond the minimum required for ensurance of protection of life, liberty, and property--and on the local level, laws for maintenance of necessary infrastructure and services.

THis is sounds good but meaningless rhetoric. Most every law can, likely, be traced to one of the above or at a minimum a very good argument can be made that it is traceable to that.

You often use these last two thoughts in your posts. I find them meaningless. They do however have that ring of holiness that calls to the unthinking faithful.

[lehighguy]

My Dad is the most compasionaite man I know. He has been a loving father, a good husband, and has shouldered immense burden his whole life. He has looked out for his family, friends, and community and asked nothing for himself. His entire life has basically been in the service of others.

Unlike you however, he is not a thief. He has principles. And his principles tell him welfare is theft, so he won't be a thief no matter how much he needs it.

[lehighguy]

MLK argued people should be treated the same no matter the circumstances of their birth. Modern liberals argue the exact opposite.

Most of the laws you propose directly conflict with basic rights guranteed by our consistution. But you just don't care because that gets in your way.

[ACPlayer]

But you just don't care because that gets in your way.

THis is inane. You produce these pouty lines because I dont agree with you.

Regarding MLK, so his VISION was accepted by the people and you think it was a good change that he forced on society. Does that mean that anyone with a VISION that conflicts with your view simply shut up. If you have an idea that you think may lead to a better society then you should pursue it and promote it. When 6M does not like an idea he claims that pursuing the change is ill-advised. I disagree, pursuing change is always worthwhile. Does not mean that all proposals should be accepted or even be acceptable. There are some pretty kooky proposals being put out, like the ones about teaching the bible in science class, or the oft tried Christian Amendment. Let them all be pursued, the good ones will be adopted and if the bad ones are adopted then we will all suffer. So be it.

I have yet to propose a law that a lawyer cannot find an argument for that would pass constitutional muster.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Reason: Income taxes were already paid on that money
--------------------------------------------------------------
This is only partially true - for imcome taxes as presently defined. Appreciated assets are not taxed if there is no estate tax and the tax basis for the assets is raised to the current value for the heirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have a point there.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you still seem to not get the larger point that forcing society to change to accomodate YOUR vision of fairness is generally a misguided effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------
THis is patently false and undesirable. Plenty of desirable changes have come about from people who have pushed really hard to change society to meet their thinking. MLK forced society to change to accommodate HIS vision or has he put it HIS dream. If someone has an idea that HE thinks would make society better it is his responsibility to try and make that change. Whether he succeeds or not depends on the society at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you missed the key word "generally"? Alternatively I could have written "usually". I specifically didn't write "always". It is my view that MOST of the changes people try to push through laws to foist upon society are for worse not better. Also, I'll bet that it is a rare "improvement" that people suggest, that actually is. MOST of what people would like to force others to do would have bad results, if implemented. And that doesn't even address the matter of conflict of a million ideas. So...MOST of what you or I or anyone else thinks would be good laws and "improvements" to society, actually probably wouldn't be. That is not to say ALL of it should be discarded without a thought--just that before trying to make anything a law, it should be considered pretty much as a last and necessary resort.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore it is generally best to pass no federal laws beyond the minimum required for ensurance of protection of life, liberty, and property--and on the local level, laws for maintenance of necessary infrastructure and services.
------------------------------------------------------------
THis is sounds good but meaningless rhetoric. Most every law can, likely, be traced to one of the above or at a minimum a very good argument can be made that it is traceable to that.

You often use these last two thoughts in your posts. I find them meaningless. They do however have that ring of holiness that calls to the unthinking faithful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simplicity is a virtue in many things and I don't think legal matters or the organization of society are the exceptions to this principle.

[ACPlayer]

Without quiblling over generally and always.

I would say that as a citizen, anyone with an idea that he thinks would improve society should pursue it. Now obviously the more important it is to the person the more vigourously he will pursue that idea.

[MMMMMM]

As in my other response to you, ACPlayer, I am NOT claiming that ALL visions should be ignored, nor am I claiming that NOBODY has a worthwhile vision. I'm cautioning against trying to push through legal changes to implement such visions of society except in the most exceptional and necessary matters. Clearly the OP's original proposal does not meet those guidelines. There are zillions of things people would like to see changed in society. That does not mean that we should pass zillions of laws in order to try to effect those changes. Moreover, many of those laws would be in conflict with one another;-) So I'm saying activism except in the most exceptional and important matters is generally misguided.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Without quiblling over generally and always.

I would say that as a citizen, anyone with an idea that he thinks would improve society should pursue it. Now obviously the more important it is to the person the more vigourously he will pursue that idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that they should hesitate thrice before so doing. Most ideas are half-baked; most activists go off half-cocked; and most ideas are somehow half-bad. Really, doing nothing is often better than trying to effect "improvements" on society. I would go so far as to say it is a rare "improvement" for society that actually is. Mencken or Zeno might take this idea a bit further;-)

[jackdaniels]

I've been reading this thread from the begining and would like to say that the creation of law based on the "whim" of a dictator or the majority of the moment is a terrible thing. M6 got it right when he said that these laws never have an end in sight, they simply continue to punish different groups, depending on the political agenda de jour (today we collect a death tax and tomorrow we collect a "you are too fat and are a burden on the health care system" tax).

To pass legitimate laws one must first recognize that the basis of any legitimate law must be the defense of individual rights, and by these I mean primarily the right to be left alone - without anyone else deciding what you should/should not be doing. It is only the violation of this right that allows for the moral creation of new law.

As for the idea of "work camps" - these exist and are available to anyone seeking them out (usually fishing/logging/mining - with a 3 month contract).

Also, I have no problem with anyone pushing their ideals and wanting to turn their vision of human interaction into - so long as that vision is based on a voluntary exchange between individuals. Once someone gets a vision that includes forcing others to live by his new rules/moral ideals, forcing others to comply with his/her vision of how the world should be run (against their will) well, that's what the second amendmant is for (hint: not for hunting rabbits!).

[lehighguy]

If your vision involves violating others rights then it is wrong. I don't think the Christian fundies should be able to force thier believes on everyone else. I don't think that is a plank we need to pursue as you suggest.

I believe that people have certain inate rights and that the government DOES NOT have the right to overule them.

[lehighguy]

Not if thier idea involves hurting other people and trampling thier rights. Hitler should not be able to pursue his ideas vigorously.

[andyfox]

Better.

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Regards,
Andy

[andyfox]

"Most ideas are half-baked; most activists go off half-cocked; and most ideas are somehow half-bad."

A Twain-like aphorism. Bravo.

"doing nothing is often better than trying to effect "improvements" on society."

When the "solution" is a total one, like, for example, the ones Lenin and Mao tried, or Le Corbusier would like to have tried (and, actually, his disciples did manage to build one, the city of Brasilia), I agree completely. The problem, though is that what we currently have is often the product of the half-baked, half-cocked, half-bad "improvements" previously made. Or what made sense in a different era, may make less sense now (social security?). If we can get somebody who is only three-eighths-baked, -cocked, and/or -bad, we would be, by my fuzzy math, somewhat better off, no?

[TomCollins]

I am anti-welfare because it is not YOUR decision to decide what to do with my money. It is my money. If I want to burn it or invest it on property on the moon, its my choice.

[MMMMMM]

Well, yes, Andy; but the majority of people and ideas are at least half-cocked.

Therefore, the implemention of ideas, especially those ideas which require forcing others to do things, should be approached with great caution rather than with gusto.

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
I am anti-welfare because it is not YOUR decision to decide what to do with my money. It is my money. If I want to burn it or invest it on property on the moon, its my choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to this man! He is wise and speaks the truth!!! The above post spells out EXACTLY everything you need to know about welfare (and other "noble" ideas concocted by half-assed social revolutionaries).

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I am anti-welfare because it is not YOUR decision to decide what to do with my money. It is my money. If I want to burn it or invest it on property on the moon, its my choice

[/ QUOTE ]

Welfare is taken from taxes. Taxes are required to be payed on income by law. Once your taxes have been collected it is no longer YOUR money. If you don't like it become a politicion and try to change it but do not claim it's your money. It isn't.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Agreed that once it is taxed it is no longer yours. The real question is, what limitations should be placed on the government's power to tax.

As long as government has money to dole out, people will have "good ideas" about how to spend it. Those "good ideas" will always require more money that the government has to spend. Thus the only way to control the rape of your paycheck is to set in stone how much the government can and cannot take.

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am anti-welfare because it is not YOUR decision to decide what to do with my money. It is my money. If I want to burn it or invest it on property on the moon, its my choice

[/ QUOTE ]

Welfare is taken from taxes. Taxes are required to be payed on income by law. Once your taxes have been collected it is no longer YOUR money. If you don't like it become a politicion and try to change it but do not claim it's your money. It isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir, are a fool. More importantly - you propogate some dangerous ideas. Who's money is it? The governments? They get to decide how to spend it and no one is allowed to question them? (which is how personal property should be disposed of - strictly in accordance with the wishes of the legitimate owner).

The fact that the money is stolen from the public doesn't mean we are not to question how it is spent. It is still public money. Until the day when they abolish this evil known as taxes, one must question every single expenditure by gov't. In fact, while the best way to bring about change is involvement in politics (and education of the populace) - it is every citizens RESPONSIBILITY to question how tax dollars are spent by a gov't who didn't have to earn those dollars in the first place, so rarely feels the need to be responsible with them.

Ignore your responsibility at your own peril.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the only way to control the rape of your paycheck is to set in stone how much the government can and cannot take

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not clear what you are trying to say. There are laws as to what the government can take. They don't just arbitrarily make up what you will pay and what your neighbor will pay on some whim.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The point is, we need to reduce the level of taxation but amending the constitution. I'd prefer repealing the 16th amendment, but that isn't going to happen.

[TomCollins]

So as long as there is a law that states something is allowed, it is moral and just?

I dunno, I thought slavery was immoral. Guess not, since there was a law supporting it!

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
You sir, are a fool

[/ QUOTE ]

But not one who lives in denial

[ QUOTE ]
more importantly - you propogate some dangerous ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the first too propogate the idea of modern democracy that most of the western world pratices. But I am flattered.

[ QUOTE ]
Who's money is it? The governments? They get to decide how to spend it and no one is allowed to question them?

[/ QUOTE ] It's the publics money but the responsibility for spending it has been given to the government (whether that be federal, state, local etc.) You question them on a federal level every 4 years. We had one last year. It was in all the papers. On a state and local level its more often.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the money is stolen from the public

[/ QUOTE ]

Inform your local police if you are being robbed.

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't mean we are not to question how it is spent

[/ QUOTE ]

We can. Who's claiming otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]
It is still public money

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. You want to fill out a form everytime they, (and I'm using 'they' as a generic term for anyone entrusted with the spending of public money), want to spend some public money. By the way, this was tryed once, in Ancient Greece, it's where the word democracy comes from. It failed.

[ QUOTE ]
Until the day when they abolish this evil known as taxes

[/ QUOTE ]

Would the taxes which pay for your national security be considered evil? What about basic infrastructure you know roads and stuff - all evil still? The police?

[ QUOTE ]
one must question every single expenditure by gov't. In fact, while the best way to bring about change is involvement in politics (and education of the populace) - it is every citizens RESPONSIBILITY to question how tax dollars are spent by a gov't who didn't have to earn those dollars in the first place, so rarely feels the need to be responsible with them.

Ignore your responsibility at your own peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apart from a bit of nit-picking I agree with this.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
So as long as there is a law that states something is allowed, it is moral and just?

I dunno, I thought slavery was immoral. Guess not, since there was a law supporting it!

[/ QUOTE ]

I would prefer if you could quote from my post where I have even hinted at this. Good luck

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not clear what you are trying to say. There are laws as to what the government can take. They don't just arbitrarily make up what you will pay and what your neighbor will pay on some whim.


[/ QUOTE ] No luck needed.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not clear what you are trying to say. There are laws as to what the government can take. They don't just arbitrarily make up what you will pay and what your neighbor will pay on some whim.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No luck needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this implies I believe the law to be moral and just how?

Better luck next time.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Welfare is taken from taxes. Taxes are required to be payed on income by law. Once your taxes have been collected it is no longer YOUR money. If you don't like it become a politicion and try to change it but do not claim it's your money. It isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would presume you are only speaking in legal terms, and no ethical or moral terms. In that case, we have an argument over semantics.

I was speaking on pure moral grounds. It appears you are admitting you are not.

[ACPlayer]

I would say that they should hesitate thrice before so doing.

Wrong! The citizen should hesitate not at all if he believes in the idea.

The legislature can hesitate as much as they like, so the change happens only when the time is right.

So, go ahead and push your idea for work farms -- even though it belongs not in the US of A. I can just hope that it does not make it into the laws of the land.

[ACPlayer]

You have to understand the welfare is as much for the rich as for the poor (and no I am not talking about corporate welfare or other tax gimmicks that benefit the rich overly).

The welfare system increases the security of the richer groups. Go live in South Africa where the rich live behind barbed wires and high walls as, otherwise, their property will be stolen.

The welfare system allows the rich to keep the poor exactly where they (the rich want them) out of sight and in their own world.

The welfare system, in the long run, benefits the poor the least of all. It saps the soul of the recipient and saps generations of recipients of will.

So, consider the taxes you pay as part of the cost of having the infrastructure in which you can pursue your career and education. Without those taxes and, to some extent, the welfare payments to the poor -- you would have nothing.

I think that the real reason to get rid of welfare is that it destroys the lives of the people who receive it. Your sentiments on this subject smack of small minded pettiness (IMO).

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the real reason to get rid of welfare is that it destroys the lives of the people who receive it. Your sentiments on this subject smack of small minded pettiness (IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear hear.

[TomCollins]

I believe in principles. The ends do not justify the means. Even if welfare caused every poor person to become the most successful they could possibly be in this country, looting anyone to pay for it is unjust. However, I do believe voluntary charity can serve the purposes you lay out.

I also agree that welfare does not help in its current state.

[ACPlayer]

Looting would definitely happen if there was no safety net. At present there is no looting. Get over it.

[TomCollins]

Wow, this is big news, the crime rate is ZERO!!!!

You are basically advocating extortion.

[TomCollins]

I also have different expectations between a petty criminal and a governmetn that is supposed to be protecting me.

Just because I may get looted by one does not mean that I should be looted by another.

[ACPlayer]

Actually I am advocating bribery.

[Drunk Bob]

My parents are gonna die pretty soon. give them a few more years and you can have the money [censored]

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
My parents are gonna die pretty soon. give them a few more years and you can have the money [censored]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'll make sure it goes to someone who isn't an overeacting sarcastic [censored]. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I also have different expectations between a petty criminal and a governmetn that is supposed to be protecting me.

Just because I may get looted by one does not mean that I should be looted by another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would much prefer to take the chance of being looted by a petty criminal versus the certainty of being looted by the government.

[Cyrus]

A guy walks into the local welfare office, marches straight up to the counter and says, "Hi... You know, I just HATE drawing welfare. I'd really rather have a job."

The social worker behind the counter says, "Your timing is excellent. We just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nymphomaniac daughter. You’ll have to drive around in his Mercedes, but he'll supply all of your clothes. Because of the long hours, meals will be provided. You'll be expected to escort her on her overseas holiday trips.
You will have to satisfy her sexual urges. You'll have a two-bedroom apartment above the garage. Oh and the starting salary is $100,000 a year".

The guy says, "You're bullshittin' me!!!"

The social worker says, "Yeah, well, you started it."