Bush touts religion as a solution to drug addiction

[IrishHand]

lol

It's not charity - it's dealmaking. Our "aid" is always tied to something or another. "How about you forget about taxing all the resources we're going to be raping from your country, and in return, we'll dump $50 million dollars worth of medical supplies and food to your people?"

Very few things we do that involve "giving" money away are 1/2 as altruistic as they seem.

[Ray Zee]

yea there are strings attached but we rarely get them. the french still havent paid us from saving them in ww11.
its okay and right to help people but not to the extent we suffer. in the countries that dont spend so much on foreign aid and military, the countries infrastructure is in much better shape. like canada, aust. n. zealand, japan, etc. these countries are way behind us economically but far ahead in citizen services.

[John Ho]

I respect your viewpoint.

But you say the govt. takes your money by force. That's not accurate. We live in a democratic society and can choose as a society the obligations each individual has to the society as a whole (taxes, public service, the draft, etc.) You can't take your paycheck (or poker winnings) home and just say to hell with everything else.
I always think this - if in 500 years America is where Africa is today and vice versa will I want my descendents left to struggle alone and helpless or can I hope that others help them in thanks for a time when America was strong AND compassionate? There is some self interest in helping them you know. Look at how our rebuilding of Japan and Germany after WWII has benefited us today.
We are the richest and most powerful nation in the world and, I believe strongly, a certain responsibility for those less fortunate goes along with it.
That's just me though.

[HDPM]

I don't believe we live in a democratic society, but rather a constitutional republic that has democratic votes on various issues or to fill certain positions. The income tax is taken by force, unlike a sales tax. If you don't pay you go to prison. That is force. Now, the government sometimes has the right to use force on its citizens and sometimes it doesn't. I do not believe any citizen has a right to make me pay for charity. Of course, the courts will uphold the right or power of the government. I don't disagree with the reality and I do pay my taxes unlike the constitutionalist nuts. But I still think much of the current government is simply wrong. That's why I vote for "conservatives" even though most don't have a coherent political philosophy and are just tax and spend left-wingers with different views on some social things. In the end though, I think it is wrong that any government taxes any of its citizens to pay for charity. It's just not a legitimate function of government or an appropriate thing to do in a society that purports to support individual liberty.

[John Ho]

I don't see how an income tax is force. The Revolutionary War was fought under the banner of "No taxation without representation." You are represented by your House member and you have a vote for that member. It's as simple as that.

[IrishHand]

the french still havent paid us from saving them in ww11.
How exactly do the French owe us anything from WWII? We didn't do anything on their behalf - our entry into the war was caused by Germany's declaration of war against us shortly after Pearl Harbor. It might be argued that the British owe us, since they didn't exactly pay for all the stuff we gave them. It still amazes me that people think that the US entry into WWII was some kind gesture to help our European friends.

in the countries that dont spend so much on foreign aid and military, the countries infrastructure is in much better shape.
I agree 100%. It's interesting to note that the two countries who have blossomed the most economically since WWII are Germany and Japan - both due in no small measure to the fact that we chose to stick military bases in and around them, thereby relieving them of the huge expense of self-defense. The Japanese in particular have benefited from this enourmously.

[HDPM]

Of course its taken by force. As I said, governments can sometimes use force on their citizens. As a preliminary thing, notice that the income tax was not constitutional originally because of the apportionment problem. It took a constitutional amendment to get the income tax in the 20th century. Of course, I would have voted against it then, but there is no undoing it now. The income tax is taken by force because it is not optional. If you don't pay, the government comes to your door with armed men, puts you in chains, and hauls you to federal prison. That's why I pay - it sure isn't because I want to give a massive chunk of my money to the government. Now, just because it is taken by force does not mean it is either inherently illegal or immoral. As I said in my prior post, the government can use force on its citizens when they have commmitted a crime or in other situations. (The draft as one example) Anytime government force is used, some will speak out against that force if they believe the force is an improper or immoral use of force. Some speak out against goofy drug laws that allow government force to be used on people involved with drugs. Others spoke against the laws that protected the property interest slave owners immorally had in their slaves. Those laws are or were constitutional and passed via democratic process. I believe that taking away my money for many of the things the government does is wrong. I am a citizen and have the right to life liberty and property. My right to property is inextricably bound to my right to life. So when my property is taken it must only be for legitimate governmental functions. And my view of what the government of a free society ought to do is different from that of most others I admit. But I'm right no matter what they say. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[John Ho]

You can always try to get that constitutional amendment reversed.

You seem to neglect the fact that if you are a wage earner (have an employer), the minute income taxes are eliminated you will see your income either shrink 1)immediately or 2) over the years as employers factor in the fact you don't pay income taxes anymore. Furthermore, the people on the lower end of the economic spectrum will pay a greater % of their income for basics like food, shelter, and clothing. This will lead to even greater crime which will require resources to combat.

The income tax is a redistribution of wealth. I have no problem admitting that is fine with me. The very top of the economic ladder(and I actually hope to be there one day without becoming a bastard) have perpetuated the myth that wealth redistribution is wrong because it disincentivizes (is this a word?) people to work hard and climb the ladder. This, in turn, is bad for society.

Though there is some truth to this (and we don't want to tax away the reality of upward mobility), these are the same people who are bitching about the estate tax and want it repealed. If working hard to become rich is good enough for their employees, why isn't it good enough for their kids? The hypocrisy is exposed. Let's face it, many of the powerful are trying to brainwash us into working harder for them. Thank goodness people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett oppose the repeal of the estate tax and aren't going to ruin their kids by spoiling them rotten. Of course there are tax breaks for gifting, setting up trusts, and exceptions to the estate tax. Why doesn't somebody propose a tax break for pro athletes who support people in the ghetto they grew up in? I would vote for that. Better that than a tax break for a kid who went to Exeter and Yale and still needs his daddy's money.

This is a better proposal. When you and your spouse die, 100% of your estate is put up for sale to the highest bidder(since you earned it and now you're dead and don't need it who's to complain). This includes stocks, houses, and everything else. If the kids want some heirloom they can simply outbid others. The proceeds go to the government. This way society and the individual reap the benefits. While he is alive, he works hard and innovates so he can have the big houses, fancy meals, 23 year old girlfriend, etc. but when he dies he reduces the financial burden on his fellow citizens through the sale of his assets. No exceptions on any of this.

Think we can get bipartisan support for this?

[Zeno]

"Examine the religious principles which have, in fact, prevailed in the world, and you will scarcely be persuaded that they are anything but sick men's dreams."

-David Hume


"Religions are like pills, which must be swallowed whole without chewing."

-Thomas Hobbes



"Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what Zeus shall send you."

-Aristophanes


Three wags in sardonic order.