Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[PLC1]

How will we determine who is of sound mind? Will everyone who gets assistance undergo psychiatric screening?

I think people that CP is talking about have obvious disabilities.

The problem with entitlement programs that give money to people who haven't paid into a system to begin with, and therefore are really not entitled to it, is that people come to depend on the "free" money and can no longer fend for themselves.

Someone mentioned black men, as if they can't take care of themselves despite having gained equal opportunity and even affirmative action.
What a racist idea that is! Blacks can fend for themselves just like other races can unless they have come to depend on the welfare state. Of course, the same is true of white men and women who are welfare dependent. They are like wild animals who have come to depend on food doled out by humans, and so can no longer take care of themselves. The very system that is supposed to help people out of poverty actually works to keep them poor and dependent.

Job training, sure. Let's train people to work, then put them to work. Let's care for people who can't take care of themselves due to mental or physical disabilities. Let's encourage people to donate to the churches or the Salvation Army or some other charitable institution that will feed the hungry. Let's not take money by force of law to feed people who can feed themselves.

 

[citizenzen]

I think people that CP is talking about have obvious disabilities.

I think you are in danger of oversimplifying the issue. There are approximately 3.5 million homeless people in America. Some are mentally disabled, some are lazy, some are criminal, some simply don't want to conform.

According to the Wikipedia, the percentage of people living in poverty varies between 13 and 17%. Even if we use the low number, that means the USA has a population of 40 million poor people. Do you really believe that in a population that large that it's "obvious" who is able and who isn't?

 

[PLC1]

I think you are in danger of oversimplifying the issue. There are approximately 3.5 million homeless people in America. Some are mentally disabled, some are lazy, some are criminal, some simply don't want to conform.

According to the Wikipedia, the percentage of people living in poverty varies between 13 and 17%. Even if we use the low number, that means the USA has a population of 40 million poor people. Do you really believe that in a population that large that it's "obvious" who is able and who isn't?

I think the ones CP is talking about are obviously disabled.

As for the homeless, of course there are some who are mentally ill, some who are drug dependent, some who are simply temporarily down on their luck. There was a homeless couple living in the field near here last summer. Their story was that they had stored their furniture and headed out to California for a truck driver school opening that didn't materialize. It sounded plausible. The weren't disabled, or obviously drug dependent. I helped them by giving them a tent and some gear, helping them get a car started. They soon got on their feet and moved on.

Some of the homeless are not so easy to help.

The government is not in a position to use common sense to help the homeless. Private charities and private individuals are, and can do a lot more to help them get their lives back on track. Putting them on welfare just makes them dependent for a longer time, perhaps for generations.

 

[citizenzen]

The government is not in a position to use common sense to help the homeless. Private charities and private individuals are, and can do a lot more to help them get their lives back on track.

Okay, then why haven't private charities managed to provide this service as yet?

And while you focused on the homeless with your response, you didn't address the other 36.5 million Americans living in poverty. Are they supposed to be means-tested as well, or do we offer assistance to those in need without demanding proof that they aren't just mentally ill or lazy?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I've been contributing to this discussion with GenSeca now on about three different threads and it's not going anywhere.

I just don't find myself being convinced by the specious selfishness philosophy and the immorality of taking taking from one to give to another while ignoring the immorality of hoarding wealth at the expense and even the lives of others.

Somehow arguing the morality and protecting the rights of people to enrich themselves while shielding them from the consequences of their actions seems wrong to me.

GenSeca and I disagree, I think that taking some money from the wealthy is less of an immorality than the immorality of allowing others to suffer deprivation, disease, and death because of the hoarding of wealth. All the bleating about this "ism" or that "ism" is just noise that obscures the fact that human life is less important than the accumulation of money and power. Any system can be abused, any system can be used for good, it's the people in the system and how they behave that determines the outcome.

Rational taxation has given us roads, dams, libraries, schools, and a host of other artifacts of civilzation. I still think that letting the people vote is the best way to get most things done and that allowing the richest few percent to buy and run the government is the worst way.

 

[GenSeneca]

I've been contributing to this discussion with GenSeca now on about three different threads and it's not going anywhere.

It has gone on for quite some time and for some reason you still feel the need to misrepresent my position by arguing against the same old strawmen.

taking some money from the wealthy is less of an immorality than the immorality of allowing others to suffer

You recognize that is immoral to use force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others. That's real progress.

I wanted to show that your side supports the use of force, the violation of rights, and that such a position cannot be defended as being moral, just, or ethical.

It's a shame your only solution to the problem of need requires the use of force and the violation of rights. Perhaps you could use some of your energies to formulate a different solution, one that doesn't require force and doesn't violate rights.

 

[PLC1]

Okay, then why haven't private charities managed to provide this service as yet?

Are you serious? Don't you know that ther are private charities giving help to the homeless every day? Haven't you heard of the Salvation Army, for example?

And while you focused on the homeless with your response, you didn't address the other 36.5 million Americans living in poverty. Are they supposed to be means-tested as well, or do we offer assistance to those in need without demanding proof that they aren't just mentally ill or lazy?

Job training should be available for everyone who needs it. That's the way out of poverty, education.

 

[rationalist]

This is just bizarre.

The rich do stuff to screw the poor all the time. The rich make the rules and they do it to keep the rich rich.

If charities solved the problem there wouldn't be any poverty and there is.

Nobody selects poverty, it is imposed upon them.

 

[citizenzen]

Are you serious? Don't you know that ther are private charities giving help to the homeless every day? Haven't you heard of the Salvation Army, for example?

I'm, sorry... Of course I know they provide the service... but they haven't solved the problem. So I must return to the question: if the problem of caring for those in dire need hasn't been solved by the current combination for government support and private charities, what makes you think private charities alone could handle it. It seems pretty obvious to me that if the government stepped out of its role, there'd be a net loss in aid, and a worsening condition for those in need.

 

[citizenzen]

I'm only going to bump this up once, as I don't want to harp on the issue if others don't want to address it... but really... if private charities currently give generously to aiding the poor and needy along with government programs, and the problems of poverty and need are still as great as they are, please explain how these private charities alone could shoulder the load if the government programs ceased? I'm for both private and public entities helping to alleviate this problem. And I think there's ample evidence that more needs to be done, not less.

 

[PLC1]

I'm, sorry... Of course I know they provide the service... but they haven't solved the problem. So I must return to the question: if the problem of caring for those in dire need hasn't been solved by the current combination for government support and private charities, what makes you think private charities alone could handle it. It seems pretty obvious to me that if the government stepped out of its role, there'd be a net loss in aid, and a worsening condition for those in need.

And I've already explained why the government has a way of making things worse.

Surely, you don't think that the problem of poverty can be solved, do you? The government declared a war on poverty over 40 years ago, and there is probably more poverty now than there was then.

The poor you will always have with you.

 

[citizenzen]

And I've already explained why the government has a way of making things worse.

I guess I didn't understand your reasoning.

Surely, you don't think that the problem of poverty can be solved, do you?

I doubt it can be solved... at least under the circumstances we find ourselves in today, and the foreseeable future. But I don't think that means the best solution is to cut off assistance. That will only make matters worse.

But just to show you that I can compromise in an effort to find a solution, here's one for you to ponder: shantytowns.

If we allowed for shantytowns to exist, then I think I could bend a little on the amount the government assists the poor. If there were a way for marginal people to establish a community and maintain a minimal existence for themselves, then the government wouldn't have to step in as much to support them. I think may shantytowns provide that opportunity. It's worked for the third world for years... and isn't that where the U.S. is headed?

I think we should give it a try. Someone earlier quoted the old saying, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." I think we can update that to, "Give a man a welfare check and you house for him for a day. Teach a man how to build a cinder block hovel and you house him for a lifetime." What do you say?

 

[PLC1]

I guess I didn't understand your reasoning.



I doubt it can be solved... at least under the circumstances we find ourselves in today, and the foreseeable future. But I don't think that means the best solution is to cut off assistance. That will only make matters worse.

But just to show you that I can compromise in an effort to find a solution, here's one for you to ponder: shantytowns.

If we allowed for shantytowns to exist, then I think I could bend a little on the amount the government assists the poor. If there were a way for marginal people to establish a community and maintain a minimal existence for themselves, then the government wouldn't have to step in as much to support them. I think may shantytowns provide that opportunity. It's worked for the third world for years... and isn't that where the U.S. is headed?

I think we should give it a try. Someone earlier quoted the old saying, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." I think we can update that to, "Give a man a welfare check and you house for him for a day. Teach a man how to build a cinder block hovel and you house him for a lifetime." What do you say?

How about, teach a man to contribute to society, and society will contribute to him?

No, the give a man a fish quote still works today.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

This is just bizarre.

The rich do stuff to screw the poor all the time. The rich make the rules and they do it to keep the rich rich.

If the rich made the laws the way that you imagine they do, they wouldn't be paying the majority of the taxes.

The root of your problem seems to be the idea that somehow all wealth is inherently owned equally by all people. Therefore if one person has more than another, the only possible explanation is that this person has "taken" more than his fair share. If you really believe this, then not only do you not understand economics, but you do not even understand the basic nature of wealth, and how it is created. The "pie" is not fixed at a specific volume. Our economy is a magic pie, and it is as big as we make it from day to day. Everybody who contributes makes the pie bigger. If your slice of pie isn't big enough, the responsibility to make it bigger is yours and yours alone, and nobody can make it smaller against your will except the government. If you don't think so, then answer me this. Is there the same amount of value in the economy today as there was 50 years ago? If you believe that wealth must be distributed evenly by bureaucrats, then you must believe that there will never be more wealth than there is now.

If charities solved the problem there wouldn't be any poverty and there is.

Sorry no, poverty cannot be eliminated. If we removed all social programs, would the average condition of the American citizenry be better, or worse than it was prior to the start of these social programs. If the answer is that they would be worse off (which is of course the correct answer), then how can it be said that these programs are working?

Nobody selects poverty, it is imposed upon them.

Now you are just messing around. You don't really believe that do you?

Of course nobody chooses to be poor. But they do make the decisions that make them poor. The same is true of those who are not poor. They don't just wish themselves riches. They choose to make decisions that will bring about that end. Becoming wealthy requires a little more than just wishing it was so.

 

[OldTrapper]

That's the way to go Oregon!! Some of these other states in financial trouble should look to a similar solution..

I wonder why we don't see more coverage of this in the national media? Maybe because this vote doesn't fit in with the teabagger philosophy that the MSM has been romanticizing?



http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/voters_pass_tax_measures_by_bi.html

I saw this post, and just had to register to respond to it for the vote just proves how stupid the people of the State of Oregon are, and I live in Oregon.

First off, the vote passed because of the residents of the two largest counties in Oregon, Multnomah, and Lane, which are host to the largest college communities in Oregon, and are registered 80% Democrat.

Oregon has been controlled by Democrats for the past 25 years, and is now the second highest cost of living entity in the world second only to Denmark.

The tax increases were not for the benefit of the people. It was solely for the benefit of the teachers union, and the recipients of PERS, the publicv employees retirement program of which teachers, legislators, judges, the governor, etc., are members. For example, my brother is a retired city insector for the city of Portland. When he retired he was earning 54,000 a year. He now collects 72,000 in retirement benefits.

Next, the tax is retroactive to January 1, 2009. Also, the tax is on GROSS receipts, not net profit. Thus, any company that takes in 300,000 a year will be taxed on that 300,000 before any expenses are taken out, not the profit.

Then too, Oregon does not have a sales tax. So, just last week the governor proposed an 8% sales tax, and what was his justification? To save the schools.

Businesses are already laying off people to try and get enough money together (banks will not loan to small businesses in Oregon) to pay the retroactive tax.

And what is the current unemployment rate? 11.1% with it being as high as 14% here in Deschutes County, and 17% in Josephine County.

Yep, the Democrats are sure doing good by the people of Oregon. However, I have never seen anyplace in the US where Democrats have taken control where the quality of life has improved save for the few, not the many.

BTW, "Oregon Trails" is the name of the food stamp card.