Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[GenSeneca]

And when there is not enough given voluntarily, then we simply let them die in the streets to be eaten by the dogs?

Oh, you mean like in 1920, before the welfare state, how our streets were cluttered with bodies being eaten by dogs and men would come around with wheel barrels, ringing a bell and shouting, "Bring out your dead!"?

Rather than speculating on the result of not getting enough voluntary donations in an absurd emotional appeal, you should be up front about what it is you actually propose to solve the problem... If people do not donate enough voluntarily, you want government to violate their rights and take it from them by force.

Do you deny that is your "final solution" to eliminating need?

I'm guessing that as long as we have a greed-based system and a portion of the population who are greedy and rapacious that we will need laws to regulate their rapacity. You disagree, I suspect, but such is life.

Oh no, I agree... We do need laws to protect us from the greedy and rapacious elements of society, both rich and poor, and the only way to accomplish that is by eliminating governments legal ability to violate individuals rights. It is only through the government that anyone, rich or poor, can legally violate our rights.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Of course, redistribution of wealth goes both ways, but I think your estimate of 75% going to the poor is way high. The rich can pay for lobbyists to see that more of the gravy flows their way, after all.

I don't quite see the issue in the same black and white way that you do, but I generally agree that redistribution of wealth is not a good thing, regardless of which way it flows. Taking tax dollars from one person to give to another is a problem. The function of the government is not to give one person charity at the expense of another, but to help ensure that everyone has an opportunity to earn their share of the pie.

The extreme poor that Mare talks about would be better served by private charity for the most part. That would be a distribution of wealth, but a voluntary one.

Giving money to farmers to grow crops that would not be profitable is not a good use of our tax money, nor is bailing out banks and other corporations whose management has bankrupted them. Giving huge bonuses to those same managers is beyond absurd.

There are some things that benefit society collectively, and should be paid for collectively. Among them are highways, bridges, railroads hospitals, schools, and public buildings.

You are speaking my language here PLC1. I think we have a lot more in common ideologically than you might realize.

 

[rationalist]

The poor are not better served by charity. Where do you get that ludicrous notion from?

It is not down to the optional generosity of some people to resolve issues of poverty. It is the responsibility of everyone and societies are much happier places when there is less inequality. This has been proved in the book The Spirit Level.

The rich get the government to do all sorts of things to get the poor giving money to the them as in the famous case of ADM with their price fixing to make food and drink more expensive than it need be so that the billionaire owners could get a bit richer.

Coca Cola sponsors death squads at its bottling factories to kill trade unionists and when everyone is too scared to run the union they drop wages by 30% making a lot of poor people poorer so that they can get even richer.

Now, just pop your uniform on and go and die to keep us rich, there's a good naive gullible soldier.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

"The extreme poor that Mare talks about would be better served by private charity for the most part. That would be a distribution of wealth, but a voluntary one." by PLC1

Good point, but there is no charity of that type, if there was I would certainly support it.

And GenSeca, YES, I think that people should sometimes get money they don't earn. If you don't agree with that, then please tell me how your children paid their way through childhood.

You always present my position in black and white, which it is not. I don't want to see the redistribution of wealth ended until the playing field is more level, once the egregious abusers have been stripped of their super-abundance, then we can discuss the what comes next. Would you agree to ANY money going to people who don't earn it? Mentally deficient people? Paralyzed people? Orphans? Is there anyone?

Are you suggesting that full grown adults should be completely supported as if they were children? The example you use to prove your point, proves mine.

Everybody agrees that society should care for those who CAN NOT care for themselves. Able bodied adults who have just had a "case of hard luck" do not fit into that category. This is yet another straw man of the left.

 

[rationalist]

This is moronic

If, for example, you are black you are massively disadvantaged to start with and your chances of lifting yourself out of poverty is equally massively compromised before you are born.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

The poor are not better served by charity. Where do you get that ludicrous notion from?

It is not down to the optional generosity of some people to resolve issues of poverty. It is the responsibility of everyone and societies are much happier places when there is less inequality. This has been proved in the book The Spirit Level.

The rich get the government to do all sorts of things to get the poor giving money to the them as in the famous case of ADM with their price fixing to make food and drink more expensive than it need be so that the billionaire owners could get a bit richer.

Coca Cola sponsors death squads at its bottling factories to kill trade unionists and when everyone is too scared to run the union they drop wages by 30% making a lot of poor people poorer so that they can get even richer.

Now, just pop your uniform on and go and die to keep us rich, there's a good naive gullible soldier.

No, it is not my responsibility to provide for you or anybody else. It is my responsibility to provide for my family and myself. Perhaps I have a moral compunction to provide some of my excess to a charity of my choosing (I do). But this should not be forced by the government. I don't care if the aggregate happiness of the nation goes up because everybody has a few of my dollars in their pocket. If your neighbors all got together and decided they were within their rights to rob your house, because it would make the community happier as a whole to split up your stuff, would you argue that this is acceptable?

Also, are you suggesting that Coca Cola keeps slaves? Because unless you are suggesting that, then no wage they pay is to low, since nobody has to accept it and perform the tasks that Coca Cola would like performed.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

This is moronic

If, for example, you are black you are massively disadvantaged to start with and your chances of lifting yourself out of poverty is equally massively compromised before you are born.

You cannot legislate away hatred. When you try you in fact breed more of the very hatred that you would like to end. Racists are already ostracized wherever they out themselves. Even an unfounded accusation of racism is enough to silence and intimidate many Americans. Society as a whole is massively against organizations like the Klan, or the Aryan Nation etc. So to argue that we need to abolish private property rights in order to fail miserably at stamping out rare cases of actual unfairness is "moronic".

Besides, the truth is that the way our system is set up right now, you are massively advantaged, rather than disadvantaged, if you are black. There are hundreds of programs out there to lift up some at the expense of others based on nothing more than race. There are specialized college funds, hiring quotas for businesses etc...

 

[dogtowner]

Besides, the truth is that the way our system is set up right now, you are massively advantaged, rather than disadvantaged, if you are black. There are hundreds of programs out there to lift up some at the expense of others based on nothing more than race. There are specialized college funds, hiring quotas for businesses etc...

we even have an affirmative action president.

 

[rationalist]

You are all good christians

Nasty, selfish and divisive.

Now, pop your uniforms on and go and kill some people for us so that w can get richer and you can get deader

 

[citizenzen]

Everybody agrees that society should care for those who CAN NOT care for themselves. Able bodied adults who have just had a "case of hard luck" do not fit into that category. This is yet another straw man of the left.

What I'd like to know is how you'll distinguish between those who can not care for themselves and those that do not care for themselves. And, even if you managed to means-test everybody*, what will you do about those who fall into the can-do category, but choose not to? You can't force someone into action. For me, the issue isn't whether a person can, or simply does not choose to care for themselves. Once a lack of self-care is evident, it doesn't matter what the source or motivation.




*I think you'll need to create a whole new bureaucracy for this.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

You are all good christians

Nasty, selfish and divisive.

Now, pop your uniforms on and go and kill some people for us so that w can get richer and you can get deader

I am neither Cristian, nasty, or selfish. I am an agnostic easy going guy who donates to charity. I'm the sort of guy that would do anything for anybody who asks. I will not however accept the bull**** argument made by millions of vicious little whining thieves all over America that the "right" thing to do is hand over what I have worked hard for to people who did not earn it under the threat of force. I give, but I will not have what is mine TAKEN from me, and then listen to the sanctimonious pieces of garbage (edited for the children) tell me that I owed it to them because I'm somehow responsible for their failure.

You might say that I am divisive, assuming that your standard for living up to such an accusation is simply disagreeing with your politics. Of course, by that standard you would also be divisive for not agreeing with mine.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

What I'd like to know is how you'll distinguish between those who can not care for themselves and those that do not care for themselves. And, even if you managed to means-test everybody*, what will you do about those who fall into the can-do category, but choose not to? You can't force someone into action. For me, the issue isn't whether a person can, or simply does not choose to care for themselves. Once a lack of self-care is evident, it doesn't matter what the source or motivation.




*I think you'll need to create a whole new bureaucracy for this.

Obviously I'm talking primarily about people with mental disabilities, and or catastrophic physical disabilities. I'm pretty sure we can find you a government job that you could do even if you have no legs. I think if you are an able bodied adult of sound mind and you are choosing to not carry your own weight, I think you should get absolutely nothing. You can starve on the street for all I care. I think all partially physically disabled people should have first dibs on government jobs. Everybody should be doing something, unless they are just 100% incapable of anything. Those are the only people who should be getting a free ride.

 

[citizenzen]

I think if you are an able bodied adult of sound mind and you are choosing to not carry your own weight, I think you should get absolutely nothing.

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

 

[dogtowner]

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

we've already determined able bodied so hand the a shovel and point to a pile a dirt and tell them to have at it and if they start digging there you have it.

 

[citizenzen]

we've already determined able bodied so hand the a shovel and point to a pile a dirt and tell them to have at it and if they start digging there you have it.

How could I possibly have overlooked that solution?