Things that make ya go hmmmmmm
-
Jim (SS) wrote:
I like to redistribute my wealth, and I think I do a good job of it. It makes me feel good to provide benefit to someone that I think deserves assistance.
Scam artists also appreciates the right of individuals to give their money to 'help' someone.
Jim (SS) wrote:
I hate it when the government redistributes my wealth (socialism), I don't think they do a good job of it. It makes me feel bad when I see that my redistributed wealth goes to people that neither need, deserve or appreciate it.
Yep. Certainly don't want to help certain types of undesirables. The fact that many others think those sort of people should be helped certainly shouldn't be a reason to compel me to help them. My money should only go to the right sort! And of course I will need to be sure that my employees, friends, neighbors and members of my congregation don't help those sort either. Certainly nothing wrong with me using my persuasion and even my economic clout to insure that they follow my righteous lead.
Somebody needs to use their intelligence to make those decisions; I sure don't see many governments making good decisions. It is your right if you want "your" money going to "undesirables", just as it is my right to have my money going to anyone I want.
SS => Qualified in Submarines
-
and ~$17B of that "foreign aid" is military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid[^]
Which still leave more than the required 30bn.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Which still leave more than the required 30bn.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
well, yeah. but not the point.
-
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert EinsteinI hate those manipulative pictures. You often see them on UK TV where charities make fund-raising appeals and use the most manipulative imaging they can. I know they have to dig deep to separate money from your wallet but I don't like it. Dagnabbit, look at how much aid is given to overseas agencies and how a good percentage is syphoned off for personal gain. Even donations of equipment and direct aid like tents, water, dried food, medicines and what have you are squirrelled away and sold on for profit. It's a delicate balance to strike. The media experts however, know how to play the game. Edit: call me cynical if you must. When me and princess lived in Joburg we often had charity workers and collectors come to the gate asking for money (what else?) or clothes they could pass on. We never ever gave cash and having given easily 20+ cheques do you know how many were ever cashed? Yup, none! Genuine charities would be able to handle that. Bogus, money-thieving bastards? No.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
I hate those manipulative pictures. You often see them on UK TV where charities make fund-raising appeals and use the most manipulative imaging they can. I know they have to dig deep to separate money from your wallet but I don't like it. Dagnabbit, look at how much aid is given to overseas agencies and how a good percentage is syphoned off for personal gain. Even donations of equipment and direct aid like tents, water, dried food, medicines and what have you are squirrelled away and sold on for profit. It's a delicate balance to strike. The media experts however, know how to play the game. Edit: call me cynical if you must. When me and princess lived in Joburg we often had charity workers and collectors come to the gate asking for money (what else?) or clothes they could pass on. We never ever gave cash and having given easily 20+ cheques do you know how many were ever cashed? Yup, none! Genuine charities would be able to handle that. Bogus, money-thieving bastards? No.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
You make good points. I don't like it either.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
jschell wrote:
Certainly don't want to help certain types of undesirables.
Where did you get "undesirables" from? People that don't need the assistance = welfare scammers People that don't deserve assistance = anyone that's been on the government tit for longer than a few months (and THAT is being generous on my part) People that don't appreciate it = anyone that thinks they are entitled to government assistance simply because they exist and the government is handing it out
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Where did you get "undesirables" from?
Because government is an equalizer.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
People that don't need the assistance = welfare scammers
Which is not the majority.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
People that don't deserve assistance = anyone that's been on the government tit for longer than a few months (and THAT is being generous on my part)
So quadriplegic veterans should be cut off after two months? Abandoned 5 year olds should be cut off after 2 months?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
People that don't appreciate it = anyone that thinks they are entitled to government assistance simply because they exist and the government is handing it out
What about those that don't appreciate the police - should the police service be terminated for them? What about those that don't appreciate construction inspections - cut them off too? There are probably meat producers that don't appreciate the mandated meat inspections - so cut those off right?
-
Somebody needs to use their intelligence to make those decisions; I sure don't see many governments making good decisions. It is your right if you want "your" money going to "undesirables", just as it is my right to have my money going to anyone I want.
SS => Qualified in Submarines
Jim (SS) wrote:
Somebody needs to use their intelligence to make those decisions; I sure don't see many governments making good decisions.
Versus what - anarchy?
Jim (SS) wrote:
just as it is my right to have my money going to anyone I want.
Maybe in your country, but the US, it is a given that individuals do not have the "right" to specify where their tax money is spent. Quite a few have tried that tactic and received criminal/civil penalties to dissuade them. But you do get to give the money that you have left after taxes to whoever you want. So give freely.
-
Funny how you libs get upset when someone tries to enact laws to say what kind of sex is ok, but then you go wacko and try to control how many children people have. Sex isn't the problem. People being irresponsible for themselves and for their neighbor is the problem.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einsteinahmed zahmed wrote:
Funny how you libs get upset when someone tries to enact laws to say what kind of sex is ok
We also get upset when people try to remove a woman's right to vote and to make it possible to hold slaves as well. But times change.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
but then you go wacko and try to control how many children people have.
Actually I didn't say anything at all about how one might reduce the population. Myself I favor mandatory random sterilization of a significant proportion babies at birth. But regardless that has nothing to do with the fact that less population would mean fewer problems.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
People being irresponsible for themselves and for their neighbor is the problem.
I suspect you have absolutely no idea how most of the world lives.
-
Jim (SS) wrote:
Somebody needs to use their intelligence to make those decisions; I sure don't see many governments making good decisions.
Versus what - anarchy?
Jim (SS) wrote:
just as it is my right to have my money going to anyone I want.
Maybe in your country, but the US, it is a given that individuals do not have the "right" to specify where their tax money is spent. Quite a few have tried that tactic and received criminal/civil penalties to dissuade them. But you do get to give the money that you have left after taxes to whoever you want. So give freely.
I guess my big question is why does any government feel it has the right to redistribute anyone's money. The US constitution limits the federal government's spending to regulating commerce, providing for defense (army, navy, etc), post offices, and a few other things. So, again what gives a government the right to create a welfare state, and take money from some people and give it to others?
SS => Qualified in Submarines
-
I guess my big question is why does any government feel it has the right to redistribute anyone's money. The US constitution limits the federal government's spending to regulating commerce, providing for defense (army, navy, etc), post offices, and a few other things. So, again what gives a government the right to create a welfare state, and take money from some people and give it to others?
SS => Qualified in Submarines
Jim (SS) wrote:
I guess my big question is why does any government feel it has the right to redistribute anyone's money.
Depends on what you mean specifically but in general there is a great deal of literature that deals with the necessity for some sort of income (taxes) for a government to support things that inviduals cannot - like military forces.
Jim (SS) wrote:
The US constitution limits the federal government's spending to regulating commerce, providing for defense (army, navy, etc), post offices, and a few other things. So, again what gives a government the right to create a welfare state, and take money from some people and give it to others?
In terms of the first and last part of that - the US government is not and never has been solely based on the US Constition. The Constitution defines a framework and is specifically NOT intended to define all aspects of the government.
-
Jim (SS) wrote:
I guess my big question is why does any government feel it has the right to redistribute anyone's money.
Depends on what you mean specifically but in general there is a great deal of literature that deals with the necessity for some sort of income (taxes) for a government to support things that inviduals cannot - like military forces.
Jim (SS) wrote:
The US constitution limits the federal government's spending to regulating commerce, providing for defense (army, navy, etc), post offices, and a few other things. So, again what gives a government the right to create a welfare state, and take money from some people and give it to others?
In terms of the first and last part of that - the US government is not and never has been solely based on the US Constition. The Constitution defines a framework and is specifically NOT intended to define all aspects of the government.
I don't have a problem with a government paying for necessary governmental functions, like the military. That is not forced redistribution from one person to another. As a matter of fact the US federal government is based solely on the constitution. That is the document that limits the role of the federal government; the courts determine whether any law is acceptable based upon whether it falls within the limits the constitution specifies. All laws must be constitutional or they may be struck down. In fact that was the argument that allowed obamacare to slip through; the supreme court determined that it was only allowed because it taxed people that didn't purchase insurance - the requirement to purchase insurance would have been unconstitutional.
SS => Qualified in Submarines
-
I don't have a problem with a government paying for necessary governmental functions, like the military. That is not forced redistribution from one person to another. As a matter of fact the US federal government is based solely on the constitution. That is the document that limits the role of the federal government; the courts determine whether any law is acceptable based upon whether it falls within the limits the constitution specifies. All laws must be constitutional or they may be struck down. In fact that was the argument that allowed obamacare to slip through; the supreme court determined that it was only allowed because it taxed people that didn't purchase insurance - the requirement to purchase insurance would have been unconstitutional.
SS => Qualified in Submarines
Jim (SS) wrote:
I don't have a problem with a government paying for necessary governmental functions, like the military. That is not forced redistribution from one person to another.
You might not. Others do however.
Jim (SS) wrote:
As a matter of fact the US federal government is based solely on the constitution
Wrong. The US government is a vast enterprise whose the vast enterprise and although the Constituion provided guidelines it is not an absolute lock on everything that occurs and since much of what occurs is based on Congressional acts, the Constitution provides no direction there except that it allows Congress to pass such laws.
Jim (SS) wrote:
That is the document that limits the role of the federal government; the courts determine whether any law is acceptable based upon whether it falls within the limits the constitution specifies. All laws must be constitutional or they may be struck down.
Eh? The Courts are part of the government.
Jim (SS) wrote:
the requirement to purchase insurance would have been unconstitutional.
I didn't say the US Constitution has zero impact on the US Government. What I said was the the government has great latitude in how they collect and spend money. And that has passed Supreme Court cases. And people that claim otherwise end up paying fines and/or spend time in jail.
