What are the top 10 things you want the government to do?

[Magic Man]

Even though 11.94% doesn't sound like a lot, just think about how much we're talking. I knew kids in highschool that hide nicer clothes and phones than me and their mom/dad drove a nicer car than my parents, and they had federal aid of some form.

Uh huh. Of course that was the case. There's no way you could be mistaken.

Anyways, if the deficit was fixed, everyone could be taxed the same percentage.

They could, but only if you wanted to make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. A flat tax is simply not a good way to go.

 

[justbehappy]

It's called the Social Contract. Society gives to the individual, the individual gives back.

Society does not have to give to the individual and the individual does not have to give back.

Thankfully most people disagree with you.

I seriously doubt that.

Society is obligated by the Social Contract, no matter what its particular form in each country, to produce such citizens.

SOCIETY DOES NOT HAVE OBLIGATIONS. You do know what an obligation is don't you? If it was required than it would already be so.

As long as you're not part of a society.

We are a society and we do have freedom... What are you trying to say?

You must be talking about pre-tax money as opposed to after taxes...

We have a right to chose if our money goes to things that don't affect us.

Exactly! and those laws say - pay your taxes.

I do pay my taxes. Do you think I don't?

That's pretty much what laws do, right? It's society's way of controlling people.

The laws I agree with are the ones that protect our rights. That's not the same thing as controlling people.

You must be fun at parties...

You must not party at all, since it can be irresponsible and all. I just hope you won't try to keep me from partying.

How do healthy, educated, empowered people threaten your freedom, unless you're Republican?

When we give taxes to the government, we see our money at work. Everyone uses roads, everyone goes to school, and everyone needs police departments to keep criminals off the street. We we all be able to have the benefits of social security and Medicare when we're older, even if we don't have it now. Government funding for the poor, though, we will never see back because most of us will never be able to get it. These are the laws that should not be in place, because they do not affect the country as a whole.

 

[justbehappy]

Uh huh. Of course that was the case. There's no way you could be mistaken.

I'm not. I'm not bull****ing stuff off the top of my head you know. I use examples when I have examples to use; if I don't, I don't. I'm not going to lie so I can win a debate, and if I can't debate you on something, so be it.

They could, but only if you wanted to make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. A flat tax is simply not a good way to go.

I can' tell you how many times I've seen this statement today... I wonder, is it the poor getting poorer that bothers you more or the rich getting richer?

 

[Darkness]

Even though 11.94% doesn't sound like a lot, just think about how much we're talking. I knew kids in highschool that hide nicer clothes and phones than me and their mom/dad drove a nicer car than my parents, and they had federal aid of some form.

There is corruption and misallocation in the system, but people who are argueing that is a reason for dismantling the programme, might as well argue that we should dismantle our police forces because innocents will inevitably be hurt by police actions. I am reminded of the quaint cartoon of libertarianism and firemen.

You were just saying 11.94% isn't a lot but now you're saying 13% is... Anyways, if the deficit was fixed, everyone could be taxed the same percentage.

The percentage are not analogous. For example, paying an additional 11 per cent on a package of cigarette has no comparison to a 11 per cent rape rate.

But you said you had a problem with them.

Read it more carefully. I said I have problems with rich people who think they are more deserving of their money than hard-working poor people, not that I believe all rich people are arrogant.

I don't know if I posted it to you or someone else, but I don't feel welfare is supported under the general welfare clause.

Pending. Check your profile visitor messages for the reason I haven't responded to you yet in the other thread. And please accept my friend request. You seem like a cool person. :yes:

But why would people who arn't rich care about that?

You are reading into my words inferences that aren't there. I do not believe the average person votes Republican because they believe their polices will help the wealthy. I think Republican voters sincerely believe their policies will assist the middle-cast. However, I have less regard for the Republican members of Senate and Congress. Many of them, I believe, know they are hurting the average American, but act as the lapdogs of corporations and the wealthy. I can think of no other rational conclusion when Republican Senators state that fiscal stimulus increases the deficit, but we do not have to worry about tax cuts for the wealthy increasing the deficit. :sarcastic

Then why are they not voting Republican if they're just trying to get richer?

One motivation, currently, is the irrational fear of socialism, Republican pundits have instilled in the population. America never had a strong, socialist movement, unlike Europe, so we fear it as something otherworldly and conflate democratic socialism with Marxist-Leninism.

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

SOCIETY DOES NOT HAVE OBLIGATIONS.

Yes, it does, under the Social Contract. Typing in caps doesn't make you less wrong.

If it was required than it would already be so.

So women's suffrage and civil rights weren't necessary because they weren't originally coded in law?

We have a right to chose if our money goes to things that don't affect us.

Only if your party wins the election. And everything affects us, because we are all one society.

The laws I agree with are the ones that protect our rights. That's not the same thing as controlling people.

All laws that protect our rights control someone in some fashion. The zoning law that prevents your neighbor from building a six story chicken coop on your property line controls their behaviour in order to protect you.

You must not party at all, since it can be irresponsible and all. I just hope you won't try to keep me from partying.

What does economics have to do with civil liberties or freedom of expression?

When we give taxes to the government, we see our money at work. Everyone uses roads, everyone goes to school, and everyone needs police departments to keep criminals off the street. We we all be able to have the benefits of social security and Medicare when we're older, even if we don't have it now.

My children are homeschooled, but I pay thousands of dollars in school taxes. Am I exempt because I don't use the school? No. Why? Because as a society we have a collective responsibility to produce educated citizens. That is the whole reasoning behind public education, and the reasoning behind the social contract.

Government funding for the poor, though, we will never see back because most of us will never be able to get it.

If the poor were paid a just wage, then the government would not have to subsidize them. A perfect example of how when people will not willingly do the right thing then they must be compelled to do it. If a company won't pay a livable wage, then the livable wage gets paid through tax money.

These are the laws that should not be in place, because they do not affect the country as a whole.

They do affect the country as a whole, because they make it possible for people to have those crappy jobs that you depend on. For example, the person that stocks the shelves at the supermarket, or the admin at your dentist's office, or the security guard at your bank, or the cashier at the department store, or the janitor at your kid's school, or your daycare provider, etc. I bet you can't get through much of your day without needing one of those people. We are a society, and we could not succeed or even survive without all of the unnoticed people that make our lives possible. The individual gives, the society gives back. Anything else is just slavery in a modified form.

 

[justbehappy]

There is corruption and misallocation in the system, but people who are argueing that is a reason for dismantling the programme, might as well argue that we should dismantle our police forces because innocents will inevitably be hurt by police actions. I am reminded of the quaint cartoon of libertarianism and firemen.

I wasn't arguing that as a reason to get rid of it, though. I was arguing that it wasn't underfunded simply. And if you feel that it is, I'm sure reform would do more than adding to the budget for it.

The percentage are not analogous. For example, paying an additional 11 per cent on a package of cigarette has no comparison to a 11 per cent rape rate.

Oh of course. But 12% of the budget going to 13% of the people sounds about accurate to me.

Read it more carefully. I said I have problems with rich people who think they are more deserving of their money than hard-working poor people, not that I believe all rich people are arrogant.

Pending. Check your profile visitor messages for the reason I haven't responded to you yet in the other thread. And please accept my friend request. You seem like a cool person. :yes:

I finally deciding to check after seeing my notifictions raised in #. Sorry for the delay, I never check those things

You are reading into my words inferences that aren't there. I do not believe the average person votes Republican because they believe their polices will help the wealthy.

Well it might not of been you, but at least one person said it was the sole purpose of the Republican party, either on this thread or another.

I think Republican voters sincerely believe their policies will assist the middle-cast. However, I have less regard for the Republican members of Senate and Congress. Many of them, I believe, know they are hurting the average American, but act as the lapdogs of corporations and the wealthy. I can think of no other rational conclusion when Republican Senators state that fiscal stimulus increases the deficit, but we do not have to worry about tax cuts for the wealthy increasing the deficit. :sarcastic

It is truly a hard situation because tax cuts cannot be put into place until we fix he deficit.

One motivation, currently, is the irrational fear of socialism

You haven't met T-Dawg apparently. He wants Socialism, and then later on Communism

 

[justbehappy]

Yes, it does, under the Social Contract. Typing in caps doesn't make you less wrong.

Maybe you'd actually take the time to read it, though, or maybe I'm just annoyed that you haven't. A requirement requires it to be done... It is not done, and so it is not a requirement.

So women's suffrage and civil rights weren't necessary because they weren't originally coded in law?

What? I never said anything about "what isn't originally coded in law"

All laws that protect our rights control someone in some fashion. The zoning law that prevents your neighbor from building a six story chicken coop on your property line controls their behaviour in order to protect you.

We wouldn't be protected without them.
I must say a six-story chicken coop sounds pretty cool, though. I would like to see one of those. Honestly.

What does economics have to do with civil liberties or freedom of expression?

If we can control people's responsibility when it comes to money, why can't we control people's responsibility with everything?

My children are homeschooled, but I pay thousands of dollars in school taxes. Am I exempt because I don't use the school? No.

I personally think you should be.

Why? Because as a society we have a collective responsibility to produce educated citizens.

There goes that responsibility thing again...

That is the whole reasoning behind public education, and the reasoning behind the social contract.

I would much rather justify it as giving everyone an equal chance to move up in the world.

They do affect the country as a whole, because they make it possible for people to have those crappy jobs that you depend on.

Wouldn't giving them money make them more likely to get a better job, though..? Or simply not have a job at all. But that definitely doesn't have to do with my reason against it.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I am a fervent supporter of what has become know as Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Oh...beautiful... :clap

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

OK I know you two are going back and forth, but it's an interesting discussion.

Maybe you'd actually take the time to read it, though, or maybe I'm just annoyed that you haven't. A requirement requires it to be done... It is not done, and so it is not a requirement.

Is there a legal obligation to a Social Contract? No. Is there a moral obligation? I defer to Abe Lincoln's quote, which while about something entirely different, applies to human relations in general: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

What? I never said anything about "what isn't originally coded in law"


We wouldn't be protected without them.
I must say a six-story chicken coop sounds pretty cool, though. I would like to see one of those. Honestly.

lol, but that's a lot of chicken **** to clean up.

The thing is, a government should not just let people do whatever they want short of attacking one another. You wanna see a live demonstration of Lord of the Flies, just eliminate all corporate regulations and watch what happens.

If we can control people's responsibility when it comes to money, why can't we control people's responsibility with everything?

It isn't about controlling their internal responsibility. Only individuals can do that.

It's about preventing behavior that is destructive to others.

I personally think you should be.

There goes that responsibility thing again...

Any effective nation, corporation, or organization must balance the rights of its individuals vs. the rights of the community as a whole. If you tip too far to the community side, then you wind up with an authoritarian system that does not respect people. But if you tip too far to the individuals side, then you wind up with a dog-eat-dog system where bullies monopolize those rights, squeezing them away from the others, thus paradoxically starving the very individuals of the rights they were supposed to get. As always, the solution lies somewhere in the middle: Give individuals their rights, but not at the expense of the community.

I would much rather justify it as giving everyone an equal chance to move up in the world.

Wouldn't giving them money make them more likely to get a better job, though..? Or simply not have a job at all. But that definitely doesn't have to do with my reason against it.

 

[Magic Man]

Society does not have to give to the individual and the individual does not have to give back.

Yes, neither of these things has to happen. However, you're going to have a pretty awful society if neither happens.

When we give taxes to the government, we see our money at work. Everyone uses roads, everyone goes to school, and everyone needs police departments to keep criminals off the street. We we all be able to have the benefits of social security and Medicare when we're older, even if we don't have it now. Government funding for the poor, though, we will never see back because most of us will never be able to get it. These are the laws that should not be in place, because they do not affect the country as a whole.

Not everyone uses roads. Not everyone goes to school. Not everyone needs police departments to keep criminals off the street. We all see the benefit of helping the poor, namely in having a bigger group of productive members of society.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not. I'm not bull****ing stuff off the top of my head you know. I use examples when I have examples to use; if I don't, I don't. I'm not going to lie so I can win a debate, and if I can't debate you on something, so be it.

You're missing my point. I don't disbelieve that you remember things that way. What I have doubt about is that things were actually the way you remember them. I have the feeling your bias on the issue is changing your perception of that situation.

I can' tell you how many times I've seen this statement today... I wonder, is it the poor getting poorer that bothers you more or the rich getting richer?

The poor getting poorer is definitely the worse of the two. I don't care if someone has $152 trillion, as long as they pay the correct amount of taxes and we don't have a huge number of people trying to scrape by living in horrible conditions.

 

[justbehappy]

Is there a legal obligation to a Social Contract? No. Is there a moral obligation? I defer to Abe Lincoln's quote, which while about something entirely different, applies to human relations in general: "A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Please explain?

lol, but that's a lot of chicken **** to clean up.

See, not take care of

The thing is, a government should not just let people do whatever they want short of attacking one another. You wanna see a live demonstration of Lord of the Flies, just eliminate all corporate regulations and watch what happens.

Many corporate regulations are there to protect our rights as well (though some I don't agree with). But I'm not just talking about physical rights

It isn't about controlling their internal responsibility. Only individuals can do that.

Then why shouldn't we have the choice to give to others rather than the government deciding that for us?

 

[justbehappy]

Yes, neither of these things has to happen. However, you're going to have a pretty awful society if neither happens.

It's not that wouldn't happen at all, it's just that they wouldn't be forced to happen. Besides, we give to society through taxes. We pay for things that are used by all. This is society giving to us and us giving back.

Not everyone uses roads

How many people have honestly not been on a road a day in their life? 0.00001%?

Not everyone goes to school

Homeschooled families should not have to pay taxes for schools then

Not everyone needs police departments to keep criminals off the street

Everyone has an equal chance of being attacked, robbed, killed, raped, hi by a drunk driver, etc. (unless you're doing something to provoke these)

We all see the benefit of helping the poor, namely in having a bigger group of productive members of society.

Physically seeing something is completely different from it being available to you (I said see it back as a figure of speech)

 

[justbehappy]

You're missing my point. I don't disbelieve that you remember things that way. What I have doubt about is that things were actually the way you remember them. I have the feeling your bias on the issue is changing your perception of that situation.

Bias comes from experiences (or in some cases brainwashing). But I wouldn't consider myself bias anyways because I am aware that not all people are overfunded in their federal aid. I was just giving an example that some are. And I was also saying that reform should come before adding more to the budget for it because it'll even it out.

 

[Darkness]

I wasn't arguing that as a reason to get rid of it, though. I was arguing that it wasn't underfunded simply. And if you feel that it is, I'm sure reform would do more than adding to the budget for it.

Our critical severe levels of inequality are hard evidence that it is not working.

Oh of course. But 12% of the budget going to 13% of the people sounds about accurate to me.

Those with the broadest shoulders should have to bear the biggest burden.

I finally deciding to check after seeing my notifictions raised in #. Sorry for the delay, I never check those things

All is forgiven. :yes:

Well it might not of been you, but at least one person said it was the sole purpose of the Republican party, either on this thread or another.

It is my fault. I thought I qualified it so that you knew I was only talking about actual Congressional Republicans, not everyday footsoldiers and a 70-year-old grandma who watches Fox News. :sorry1:

It is truly a hard situation because tax cuts cannot be put into place until we fix he deficit.

Unless we dismantle social security, Medicaid and Medicaid, we will not be able to cut taxes, but Republicans know not to campaign on that simple message, because every old-white person who currently votes Republican would vote Democrat. We are going to need tax increases in order to maintain the rather poor social safety net we have.

You haven't met T-Dawg apparently. He wants Socialism, and then later on Communism

Yeah, but that's never going to happen, until we have advanced technologically - to the point where every basic subsistence need is easily accessible and unable to be valued in a market system. History has shown a repeated pattern of radical, left-wing movements normalising into social democratic parties.

 

[Smoke]

SOCIETY DOES NOT HAVE OBLIGATIONS.

That's not just wrong, but astoundingly wrong. A society with no obligations has no reason to exist at all. But sometimes I wonder whether the destruction of society isn't what pseudo-conservatives really want. Everything they do reeks of death, destruction, and looting.

 

[Smoke]

Homeschooled families should not have to pay taxes for schools then

I've been paying school taxes for over thirty years, and I don't even have kids. If I can pay my taxes, those whining, presumptuous, homeschool ******** can pay theirs.

 

[justbehappy]

Our critical severe levels of inequality are hard evidence that it is not working.

Reform?

Those with the broadest shoulders should have to bear the biggest burden.

How does that have to do with what i said?

Unless we dismantle social security, Medicaid and Medicaid, we will not be able to cut taxes, but Republicans know not to campaign on that simple message, because every old-white person who currently votes Republican would vote Democrat. We are going to need tax increases in order to maintain the rather poor social safety net we have.

So when is it okay to stop? When the government's taking away 99% of the money we make, are we going to find somthing else that they should pay for for us?

Yeah, but that's never going to happen, until we have advanced technologically - to the point where every basic subsistence need is easily accessible and unable to be valued in a market system. History has shown a repeated pattern of radical, left-wing movements normalising into social democratic parties.

I find the movements are increasing, though. But I surely hope it never does.

 

[justbehappy]

That's not just wrong, but astoundingly wrong. A society with no obligations has no reason to exist at all.

No, a society has goals and desires. It cannot have obligatons or requirements because each individual has a indvidual reason why they belong to that society and what they want out of that society. Unless every member of that society was in agreement of exactly what they want from the society, there can be no obligatons or requirements.

But sometimes I wonder whether the destruction of society isn't what pseudo-conservatives really want. Everything they do reeks of death, destruction, and looting.

Because this isn't a horrible exaggeraton or anything like that

 

[justbehappy]

I've been paying school taxes for over thirty years, and I don't even have kids. If I can pay my taxes, those whining, presumptuous, homeschool ******** can pay theirs.

Then you should also not have to pay