Text 3346, 147 rader
Skriven 2006-07-05 11:34:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3819.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <M_ednf2qMdFqgjbZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-54586A.23282630062006@news.west.earthlink.net>

"Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:7r6dnW2XmcfpgzbZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:dk2ma2pl8g6arsnivujnsa058tjd38d3gu@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:34:29 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>> I don't think either is true. The government can take all your money,
>>>> if it does so in a lawful manner
>>>
>>>Which would be creating a slave.
>>
>> No, a slave is owned.
>
> Distinction without a difference;

Let me ammend that... FINANCIALLY a distinction without a difference.

> all of the benefit of your work goes to someone else that determines and 
> gives you what you "need."  Work harder, no difference.  Almost like a 
> king deciding that the peasants didn't actually own anything...that there 
> were no private property rights and everything could be taken as the 
> property of the realm.  Hey...didn't we fight against that attitude once 
> before?
>
> The govt that tried to take all of our money wouldn't last long.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>No, but in previous discussions with you, you often make reference to
>>>wealth that a person doesn't "need."  Since I have a life of my own and
>>>don't *need* the money, would you then say the govt should take it all?
>>
>> No, I'm simply pointing out that the money the government /should/
>> take isn't needed and so will cause no hardship.
>
> Which is saying the govt should take as much as it can without causing 
> hardship?
>
>> That's a very
>> different statement, and a basic consideration in most of the tax
>> codes of which I'm aware. For example, we accept the fact that we
>> can't tax a poor man the same amount as a middle class or rich one. He
>> just doesn't have the money to pay.
>
> One thing that strikes me about your arguments Josh is that you *seem* to 
> want to use taxes for social engineering and you seem less concerned with 
> what they're used for.  I'm not saying that you don't care, but you seem 
> content to tax for the sake of taxing too. There are absolutely plenty of 
> good uses and plenty of things that could be done... but you seem to want 
> to tax first and figure it out later.
>
> Wouldn't it be fair to look at what we want to accomplish, figure out how 
> to do it (particularly if an existing program could be done better), 
> figure how much it's going to cost and then figure out how to pay for it?
>
>
> BTW...a short side topic....
>
> There's also a lot of other money to be had by removing waste and fraud. 
> Wouldn't it be better to eliminate the waste and fruad and better use that 
> money that we've already  collected through taxes first?
>
> Check this out:
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-welfare1jul01,1,5796307.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&ctrack

>
> or...to summarize:
>
> "Welfare Fraud costs L.A. County millions
>
> Welfare recipients and their friends and relatives could be defrauding 
> taxpayers of $500 million a year through the county's child-care programs, 
> a grand jury report concludes.
>
> According to the report, released Thursday, some county employees estimate 
> that half of the $1.1 billion in funding for the CalWORKs program is lost 
> to fraud because the Department of Public Social Services doesn't verify 
> that welfare-to-work recipients meet the requirements for child-care 
> payments."
>
> And that's one program in one county.  There's also a bridges to Alaska 
> and all sorts of other pork projects that exist. I'm not suggesting that's 
> enough to do what we want/need to do, but we could certainly improve some 
> of the programs we have with this money without having to increasing 
> taxes.
>
> Right now everone has their own pet projects... and figures that we can 
> raise taxes or generate revenues for their project in isolation.
> What if we actually made a list of national priorities... in priority 
> order? Not everything  is #1.
>
> How do the people here prioritize the various programs we have in the 
> govt?
>
> Education
> Welfare
> The environment
> Health care
> Defense
> <Fill in your own favorites>
>
> This...chaos...of govt spending seems crazy to me...and just saying raise 
> taxes because someone has some extra and there's something that needs 
> doing seems insane.   Doesn't anyone want to see a real plan any more? 
> Does ANYONE want to actually improve the 81 welfare programs we have... or 
> is simply throwing more money at it good enough?  What about the education 
> system.  Does anyone think it will take more than money to fix it?  Are we 
> so locked into the current system that it's blaspemy to suggest something 
> else?  How much would something else cost?
>
> I think you'd probably be able to get people to be much less resistent to 
> tax increases if ***anyone*** had a real clue as to how it would really 
> make things better (not just maintaining the status quo).
>
> Okay... end of rant.
>
>
>
>>>> This from someone who a few posts back called me a Communist?
>>>
>>>
>>>************* Check again...that wasn't me. *****************
>>>
>>>Good time to stop. :)
>>
>> Oops -- many many apologies. Guess I was so fatigued after a day of
>> frantic typing that all I saw was the "C," "a," "r" and "l" . . .
>>
>
> Just wanted to be clear. :)
>
>
>
                                                               
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)