|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 16, 2010 9:21:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 16, 2010 13:11:46 GMT -8
Conservatives are compassionate, but their compassion is inversely proportional to their requirement to support their fellow American citizens with tax money. $1.00 in total tax payments results in zero compassion.
Don't forget the foundation of all conservative thought: There shalt be no taxation from my pocket. All other considerations are secondary.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 17, 2010 7:22:56 GMT -8
I could spend a week taking apart the link that Aztec70 posted or supporting part of it. I think a better train of thought and point to get across is that the biggest proponents of taxes to support those in need are those who pay no taxes and would benefit from "taxing the rich" to support themselves rather than letting the rich invest to create jobs so the poor can support themselves.
That is a convoluted way of saying we have a huge constituency that would rather be on the dole than work.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 17, 2010 7:36:29 GMT -8
I could spend a week taking apart the link that Aztec70 posted or supporting part of it. I think a better train of thought and point to get across is that the biggest proponents of taxes to support those in need are those who pay no taxes and would benefit from "taxing the rich" to support themselves rather than letting the rich invest to create jobs so the poor can support themselves. That is a convoluted way of saying we have a huge constituency that would rather be on the dole than work. I am a proponent of taxes. I want all of the Bush tax cuts ended. Win, that change will cost me plenty. There is absolutely no evidence that any tax cut for the well to do results in jobs, otherwise Bush's largess would have expanded the economy. It did not. " That is a convoluted way of saying we have a huge constituency that would rather be on the dole than work." If you think all of your fellow citizens are cruds, why do you continue to tout America? Is America not its citizens? By the way, who named Republicans Prefect of Discipline? Would you want to be on the dole? If you answer no, then you have to assume that that your fellow citizens don't either. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 17, 2010 7:49:07 GMT -8
I could spend a week taking apart the link that Aztec70 posted or supporting part of it. I think a better train of thought and point to get across is that the biggest proponents of taxes to support those in need are those who pay no taxes and would benefit from "taxing the rich" to support themselves rather than letting the rich invest to create jobs so the poor can support themselves. That is a convoluted way of saying we have a huge constituency that would rather be on the dole than work. I am a proponent of taxes. I want all of the Bush tax cuts ended. Win, that change will cost me plenty. There is absolutely no evidence that any tax cut for the well to do results in jobs, otherwise Bush's largess would have expanded the economy. It did not. " That is a convoluted way of saying we have a huge constituency that would rather be on the dole than work." If you think all of your fellow citizens are cruds, why do you continue to tout America? Is America not its citizens? By the way, who named Republicans Prefect of Discipline? Would you want to be on the dole? If you answer no, then you have to assume that that your fellow citizens don't either. We are not all cut from the same cloth. By the same token, those who have become on a generational treadmill to the oblivion that liberal policy or socialism create are there because liberals want them there. I do assume that we would all prefer work over welfare if we did not have the institutionalized class who were made dependent by liberal policies made to keep liberals in power. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Oct 18, 2010 13:54:11 GMT -8
Conservatives are compassionate, but their compassion is inversely proportional to their requirement to support their fellow American citizens with tax money. $1.00 in total tax payments results in zero compassion. Don't forget the foundation of all conservative thought: There shalt be no taxation from my pocket. All other considerations are secondary. If government didn't have such a nasty track record for wasteful spending and non-accountability we wouldn't have this discussion. I would much rather donate my money to my charities than to the federal government any day of the week. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 18, 2010 16:18:50 GMT -8
Conservatives are compassionate, but their compassion is inversely proportional to their requirement to support their fellow American citizens with tax money. $1.00 in total tax payments results in zero compassion. Don't forget the foundation of all conservative thought: There shalt be no taxation from my pocket. All other considerations are secondary. If government didn't have such a nasty track record for wasteful spending and non-accountability we wouldn't have this discussion. I would much rather donate my money to my charities than to the federal government any day of the week. You take a couple of anecdotes and generalize from it. Now there's thinking of true intellectual honesty and depth. There are more lousy charities than waste in government. Unfortunately, for you the common good demands that you pay taxes. Willingly pay them or not, I could'nt care less. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Oct 19, 2010 12:11:33 GMT -8
If government didn't have such a nasty track record for wasteful spending and non-accountability we wouldn't have this discussion. I would much rather donate my money to my charities than to the federal government any day of the week. You take a couple of anecdotes and generalize from it. Now there's thinking of true intellectual honesty and depth. There are more lousy charities than waste in government. Unfortunately, for you the common good demands that you pay taxes. Willingly pay them or not, I could'nt care less. A trillion dollar debt; a social security and medicare system that's damn near broke; a postal service that's way into the red, and you have the audacity smart mouth to tell us that charities are more wasteful. I don't see any common good in that. At Least I have a choice to give to a charity, and if they screw up I have a choice to quit giving. Taxes are a cancer, and the tumor is growing. And I resent having to give any thing to those parasites. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 19, 2010 13:14:59 GMT -8
If government didn't have such a nasty track record for wasteful spending and non-accountability we wouldn't have this discussion. I would much rather donate my money to my charities than to the federal government any day of the week. You take a couple of anecdotes and generalize from it. Now there's thinking of true intellectual honesty and depth. There are more lousy charities than waste in government. Unfortunately, for you the common good demands that you pay taxes. Willingly pay them or not, I could'nt care less. The money that you would need to regulate charities is peanuts when compared to the waste that is in the government run functions that are not in the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 20, 2010 8:04:21 GMT -8
You take a couple of anecdotes and generalize from it. Now there's thinking of true intellectual honesty and depth. There are more lousy charities than waste in government. Unfortunately, for you the common good demands that you pay taxes. Willingly pay them or not, I could'nt care less. A trillion dollar debt; a social security and medicare system that's damn near broke; a postal service that's way into the red, and you have the audacity smart mouth to tell us that charities are more wasteful. I don't see any common good in that. At Least I have a choice to give to a charity, and if they screw up I have a choice to quit giving. Taxes are a cancer, and the tumor is growing. And I resent having to give any thing to those parasites. Audacity? Smart mouth? Thank you for the compliments.  Many Charities are wasteful. If you can draw an erroneous conclusion about government from an incomplete examination of the facts, you must allow me the same privilege. Taxes are necessary. I am so sorry you don't like them. The thought of taxes has caused you great existential pain. I can tell. Those "parasites" defend your county, make sure you have healthful products, provide you legal recourse, provide your infrastructure and hundreds of other things. I have been arguing with some talented conservatives on this board like davdesid, Win, etc. And watch out for the Great Aztec Joe, he will trap you with hyperbole. Interacting with theses people have sharpened my skills. I know that you can do it too. You have to do better than saying you hate taxes, though. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Oct 20, 2010 8:44:29 GMT -8
Don't doubt that these services are warranted. But as I stated earlier, a trillion dollar debt needs a complete reorganization of how govt. manages and spends money. I hate taxes because there is no accountability for waste of public funds. Seems like all we do is keep throwing good money after bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 20, 2010 9:13:01 GMT -8
Don't doubt that these services are warranted. But as I stated earlier, a trillion dollar debt needs a complete reorganization of how govt. manages and spends money. I hate taxes because there is no accountability for waste of public funds. Seems like all we do is keep throwing good money after bad. You call it waste but you do not specify where the waste occurs. We were running a surplus, remember? Who turned the surplus into a deficit? Why did that change occur? A reversal of the current tax cuts would almost cure the problem. Why not just eliminate the cuts? I am willing. How would you reorganize the government? You say that there is no accountability. Did accountability not occur in 2006 and 2008 when the Republicans were removed? Did that not happen in 1994 when the Democrats were removed? Aren't you fervently hoping for accountability to occur again this year? If the vote is not an exercise in accountability, please describe what you think accountability looks like. If you do not consider your vote to be an exercise in accountability, what do you use it for? And what does the way you use it say about how much confidence you have in democracy? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 20, 2010 12:15:46 GMT -8
Let me see if I can straighten you all out on this thorny issue. What is at stake in the political realm is the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state. Before the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the individual citizen (or subject . . . or even slave) was subservient to the state in every way. He or she had few rights, basically only those that the monarch or ruling junta was willing to grant. And those rights (perhaps I should say privileges) could be revoked at any time. That all changed with the appearance of the two aforementioned documents. The government was to be subservient to the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. Those representatives would serve in a legislative body whose functions were specifically enumerated by the Constitution. What set the United States of America from all other nations was the concept that the individual should be free to live his life with a minimum of interference by government. The idea that the government should step in to right every perceived wrong and put food on the table of the hungry would, in 1787 America, have been met with uncomprehending stares if not downright hostility. It’s important to keep in mind that the Founders were not advocating anarchy. Far from it! Government, in their view, had an important role to play. But that role was not unlimited. The Founders were intent on keeping the individual citizen at the center of society, not a monarch or elite ruling class. For close to 150 years, that idea was respected; not perfectly, to be sure, but with amazing fidelity considering all the changes that had taken place in technology and society in the interim. Then came the stock market crash of 1929. There had been panics and economic downturns in the U.S. before, some very serious. (See footnote.) The Crash of ’29 was very bad and made worse by mistakes made by the Hoover administration. Add to that the growing popularity of socialist/collectivist thought launched by the Fabian Society in the late 19th Century. Enter Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal! Ever since FDR’s inauguration in 1933, the Democratic Party has basically stood for a political philosophy that repudiates the Founder’s belief that the individual should be supreme and the government the servant of the people. Instead, the Left, which got a big boost from the Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century, took the position that the government should be in the business of leveling playing fields and righting wrongs. Individual rights were, ultimately less important than society-wide ‘social justice” concerns. Or, to borrow a phrase credited to various persons, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” The problem with this philosophy is that it requires massive expansion of the federal government and the concomitant increase in the power of that government to influence and interfere with the lives of private citizens. I find it hard to understand why Leftists cannot see the dangers inherent in concentrating so much power in the hands of politicians and, worse yet, unelected bureaucrats. I guess such people assume that only those with views identical with their own will ever be in a position to abuse such power. Once the government starts to put its thumb on the scales of society, there is no limit to the damage it can do. And doing damage is much more likely than doing good when politicians start making things “right” in America. The article linked in this thread is written by someone who obviously thinks that her views are good and virtuous and well-meaning and should become the law of the land. Someone ought to send her copies of the Federalist Papers. AzWm (Here is a list of American panics, recessions, and depressions. [I’m puzzled by the 1945 one. It is my understanding that there was a recession in 1946, which largely lead to a Republican take-over of Congress in the elections of that year. I wonder whether that’s a misprint.] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States ) |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 20, 2010 13:15:40 GMT -8
Let me see if I can straighten you all out on this thorny issue. What is at stake in the political realm is the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state. Before the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the individual citizen (or subject . . . or even slave) was subservient to the state in every way. He or she had few rights, basically only those that the monarch or ruling junta was willing to grant. And those rights (perhaps I should say privileges) could be revoked at any time. That all changed with the appearance of the two aforementioned documents. The government was to be subservient to the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. Those representatives would serve in a legislative body whose functions were specifically enumerated by the Constitution. What set the United States of America from all other nations was the concept that the individual should be free to live his life with a minimum of interference by government. The idea that the government should step in to right every perceived wrong and put food on the table of the hungry would, in 1787 America, have been met with uncomprehending stares if not downright hostility. It’s important to keep in mind that the Founders were not advocating anarchy. Far from it! Government, in their view, had an important role to play. But that role was not unlimited. The Founders were intent on keeping the individual citizen at the center of society, not a monarch or elite ruling class. For close to 150 years, that idea was respected; not perfectly, to be sure, but with amazing fidelity considering all the changes that had taken place in technology and society in the interim. Then came the stock market crash of 1929. There had been panics and economic downturns in the U.S. before, some very serious. (See footnote.) The Crash of ’29 was very bad and made worse by mistakes made by the Hoover administration. Add to that the growing popularity of socialist/collectivist thought launched by the Fabian Society in the late 19th Century. Enter Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal! Ever since FDR’s inauguration in 1933, the Democratic Party has basically stood for a political philosophy that repudiates the Founder’s belief that the individual should be supreme and the government the servant of the people. Instead, the Left, which got a big boost from the Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century, took the position that the government should be in the business of leveling playing fields and righting wrongs. Individual rights were, ultimately less important than society-wide ‘social justice” concerns. Or, to borrow a phrase credited to various persons, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” The problem with this philosophy is that it requires massive expansion of the federal government and the concomitant increase in the power of that government to influence and interfere with the lives of private citizens. I find it hard to understand why Leftists cannot see the dangers inherent in concentrating so much power in the hands of politicians and, worse yet, unelected bureaucrats. I guess such people assume that only those with views identical with their own will ever be in a position to abuse such power. Once the government starts to put its thumb on the scales of society, there is no limit to the damage it can do. And doing damage is much more likely than doing good when politicians start making things “right” in America. The article linked in this thread is written by someone who obviously thinks that her views are good and virtuous and well-meaning and should become the law of the land. Someone ought to send her copies of the Federalist Papers. AzWm (Here is a list of American panics, recessions, and depressions. [I’m puzzled by the 1945 one. It is my understanding that there was a recession in 1946, which largely lead to a Republican take-over of Congress in the elections of that year. I wonder whether that’s a misprint.] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States ) " The government was to be subservient to the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives."Who are you to say (with any more authority than the rest of us) that government is, in fact, not doing what it has been told to do by the people? I would ask you to ask citizens about the programs that affect them and the laws that protect them. If you ask those questions on a program by program basis, you might not like the answer. I would suggest that it is the conservative goal to make government subservient to the will of a few (Citizens United is an excellent example of an attempt to transfer effective power to fewer individuals.) and thereby make government subservient to them and not the rest of us. By making government smaller, you create a vacuum that would be filled by the next handy powerful entity. You complete what economics has already accomplished to a great degree; the concentration of power into a small group of powerful individuals and corporations. It boils down to a very simple question, really. Who do you trust? |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 20, 2010 13:25:34 GMT -8
I could spend a week taking apart the link that Aztec70 posted or supporting part of it. I think a better train of thought and point to get across is that the biggest proponents of taxes to support those in need are those who pay no taxes and would benefit from "taxing the rich" to support themselves rather than letting the rich invest to create jobs so the poor can support themselves. That is a convoluted way of saying we have a huge constituency that would rather be on the dole than work. Please do. Do you dispute any of the quotes in the article? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 20, 2010 15:39:01 GMT -8
I could spend a week taking apart the link that Aztec70 posted or supporting part of it. I think a better train of thought and point to get across is that the biggest proponents of taxes to support those in need are those who pay no taxes and would benefit from "taxing the rich" to support themselves rather than letting the rich invest to create jobs so the poor can support themselves. That is a convoluted way of saying we have a huge constituency that would rather be on the dole than work. Please do. Do you dispute any of the quotes in the article? I have a better way of spending a week! Would I change your mind with even the most well thought out and logical arguments that support Conservative ideals? |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 20, 2010 16:14:44 GMT -8
Please do. Do you dispute any of the quotes in the article? I have a better way of spending a week! Would I change your mind with even the most well thought out and logical arguments that support Conservative ideals? I thought we were talking about the article linked to above. I also do agree with some Conservative ideals but being that I can think for myself and make my own decisions, I also support various Liberal and Libertarian ideals too. And yes, sometimes they do conflict. I have no respect for anyone who votes the "party line" just because they are Republican or Democrat. That person is just another Lemming falling off the cliff. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 20, 2010 17:01:38 GMT -8
Responding to waztec: You have, inadvertently I suppose, touched on an important point in this discussion. Perhaps I did not make this point clear. The United States of America was founded on the following fundamental idea. Every citizen has the right, to the maximum degree consistent with an orderly, non-violent society, to deal freely with any other citizen or citizens. What you suggest in the following excerpt from your post suggests something quite different. . . Who are you to say (with any more authority than the rest of us) that government is, in fact, not doing what it has been told to do by the people? I would ask you to ask citizens about the programs that affect them and the laws that protect them. If you ask those questions on a program by program basis, you might not like the answer. Well, whether I like the answer or not is less important than whether the question is valid in the first place. We get back to the fundamental issue of what the government should try to do. There are a number of functions that virtually all citizens would agree are to be carried out by the government. One is policing. Sure, it would be possible for individuals to hire their own policemen/bodyguards. That system has been tried, with something less than excellent results; it's called the Dark Ages!  We need a legislature to pass laws. (Yes. there must be laws!)We need a court system to try citizens accused of crimes. We need a military to defend our shores. Once we go beyond that we get into the slippery slope area. Few would want to do away with pure food and drug laws, but just because the government says a piece of meet or a bottle cough syrup is okay to consume does not make it so. Once the government sets out to make life safe for us, trouble begins. It begins because government, although it must do certain things, is well suited for some tasks and poorly for others. Now, let's get back to your question as to whether the "people" support certain programs. Well, what do you mean by "people"? Presumably, you would never hold that any given government program is supported by 100% of the people. Therefore, you must mean that a given program is supported by a majority of the people. But that's just the problem. As long as an issue is decided by majority rule, there will always be many who are opposed, many bitterly opposed to what ever government program or action is being contemplated. Sometimes that is unavoidable. The election for Pres.of the U.S. could, theoretically, hinge on the vote of a single voter. That is almost certainly not ever going to happen, but it's possible. And we have had election for Pres, such as 1960 and 2000 which were very, very close. There's no way around that, since SOMEBODY has to be President, and that mean one particular candidate. But isn't it better to have as many issues as possible decided by the free choice of individual Americans rather than have the decision made by a vote of a legislature or a national plebiscite? Here's an example, a wildly exaggerated one, but I think it will serve to make my point. Let's take ice-cream flavors. Let's say that there is a federal ice-cream agency that is going to make ice-cream available to everyone free of charge. But what flavor to choose? The ice-cream Czar decides it will be one of these flavors; vanilla, chocolate, or pineapple. The people vote. . . it's chocolate! Immediately, those in favor of the other flavors begin to demonstrate and cause major trouble. Maybe even a pro-vanilla and strawberry national boycott. Sure, that's a ridiculous exaggeration. Why not just let everyone choose for himself? you say. And that would indeed be a better solution. Ice-cream may be a bad example, but how about health insurance plans? In 2014 the feds will tell you that you must choose between four plans that they, the bureaucrats, have designed. You will not be allowed to buy others. Yes, the ice-cream example was silly, but why is the government taking away my right to deal freely with insurance companies. (Those companies will now effectively become adjuncts to the federal government, by the way.) Majority rule should apply in as few areas of life as possible. Free choices by individuals should be the default in the great majority of cases. Unfortunately, the Left does not feel that way. They see the government as making choices for the people since the government is - - - oh, I don't know - - - smarter, more enlightened, more virtuous than the unwashed masses. In short, I stand for freedom, the Left stands for top-down mandates. But, of course, the latter are sure that it's all in the best interest of the people! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 20, 2010 17:29:20 GMT -8
I have a better way of spending a week! Would I change your mind with even the most well thought out and logical arguments that support Conservative ideals? I thought we were talking about the article linked to above. I also do agree with some Conservative ideals but being that I can think for myself and make my own decisions, I also support various Liberal and Libertarian ideals too. And yes, sometimes they do conflict. I have no respect for anyone who votes the "party line" just because they are Republican or Democrat. That person is just another Lemming falling off the cliff. We were. Like most of us who take the time and have an interest in politics, I look at the positions of each individual candidate or a proposition to decide how to vote. It just happens that liberals never align with my views. I have on occasions voted for moderate Democrats when the other candidates have something in their record that goes against my belief system. There are no perfect candidates and so many times it comes down to voting for the least offensive person. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 20, 2010 21:12:42 GMT -8
Responding to waztec: You have, inadvertently I suppose, touched on an important point in this discussion. Perhaps I did not make this point clear. The United States of America was founded on the following fundamental idea. Every citizen has the right, to the maximum degree consistent with an orderly, non-violent society, to deal freely with any other citizen or citizens. What you suggest in the following excerpt from your post suggests something quite different. . . Who are you to say (with any more authority than the rest of us) that government is, in fact, not doing what it has been told to do by the people? I would ask you to ask citizens about the programs that affect them and the laws that protect them. If you ask those questions on a program by program basis, you might not like the answer. Well, whether I like the answer or not is less important than whether the question is valid in the first place. We get back to the fundamental issue of what the government should try to do. There are a number of functions that virtually all citizens would agree are to be carried out by the government. One is policing. Sure, it would be possible for individuals to hire their own policemen/bodyguards. That system has been tried, with something less than excellent results; it's called the Dark Ages! We need a legislature to pass laws. (Yes. there must be laws!)We need a court system to try citizens accused of crimes. We need a military to defend our shores. Once we go beyond that we get into the slippery slope area. Few would want to do away with pure food and drug laws, but just because the government says a piece of meet or a bottle cough syrup is okay to consume does not make it so. Once the government sets out to make life safe for us, trouble begins. It begins because government, although it must do certain things, is well suited for some tasks and poorly for others. Now, let's get back to your question as to whether the "people" support certain programs. Well, what do you mean by "people"? Presumably, you would never hold that any given government program is supported by 100% of the people. Therefore, you must mean that a given program is supported by a majority of the people. But that's just the problem. As long as an issue is decided by majority rule, there will always be many who are opposed, many bitterly opposed to what ever government program or action is being contemplated. Sometimes that is unavoidable. The election for Pres.of the U.S. could, theoretically, hinge on the vote of a single voter. That is almost certainly not ever going to happen, but it's possible. And we have had election for Pres, such as 1960 and 2000 which were very, very close. There's no way around that, since SOMEBODY has to be President, and that mean one particular candidate. But isn't it better to have as many issues as possible decided by the free choice of individual Americans rather than have the decision made by a vote of a legislature or a national plebiscite? Here's an example, a wildly exaggerated one, but I think it will serve to make my point. Let's take ice-cream flavors. Let's say that there is a federal ice-cream agency that is going to make ice-cream available to everyone free of charge. But what flavor to choose? The ice-cream Czar decides it will be one of these flavors; vanilla, chocolate, or pineapple. The people vote. . . it's chocolate! Immediately, those in favor of the other flavors begin to demonstrate and cause major trouble. Maybe even a pro-vanilla and strawberry national boycott. Sure, that's a ridiculous exaggeration. Why not just let everyone choose for himself? you say. And that would indeed be a better solution. Ice-cream may be a bad example, but how about health insurance plans? In 2014 the feds will tell you that you must choose between four plans that they, the bureaucrats, have designed. You will not be allowed to buy others. Yes, the ice-cream example was silly, but why is the government taking away my right to deal freely with insurance companies. (Those companies will now effectively become adjuncts to the federal government, by the way.) Majority rule should apply in as few areas of life as possible. Free choices by individuals should be the default in the great majority of cases. Unfortunately, the Left does not feel that way. They see the government as making choices for the people since the government is - - - oh, I don't know - - - smarter, more enlightened, more virtuous than the unwashed masses. In short, I stand for freedom, the Left stands for top-down mandates. But, of course, the latter are sure that it's all in the best interest of the people! AzWm That's your opinion, at least. |
|
