Katie and Jennifer

[Master Dan]

Katheran, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.

"I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."

He then asked about her friend Kaisha.

"She's not doing very well. Her GPA is 2.0 because she spends most of her time helping her single mother provide food and shelter for her 4 siblings . She often misses classes because she is to poor to get the medical treatments she needs to help with her disabilities and delayed congnative learning skills due to poor diet and lack of sleep since she sleeps most nights afraid due to the high crime area she is forced to live in. Kaisha is not popular has never known her father and does not have nice clothes like the other kids who make fun of her and she thinks of suicide.

Her father then asked Katherin why she didn't request that the Dean's office for financial assistance for Kiasha and take some personal time to help her with her studies? Katherin Clearly riled by that suggestion, exclaimed, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked very hard why dosn't that dirty looser just kill herself and reduce the surface population thats draining our resouces?

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the GOP."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I repeat:

If it's fair to take money from person A who has a lot, to give to person B who has little,
it is also fair to take food from A who has much to give to B who has little.
it is also fair to take grade points from A who has a high level to aid person B who has a low level.

 

[Makalakumu]

Katheran, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.

"I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."

He then asked about her friend Kaisha.

"She's not doing very well. Her GPA is 2.0 because she spends most of her time helping her single mother provide food and shelter for her 4 siblings . She often misses classes because she is to poor to get the medical treatments she needs to help with her disabilities and delayed congnative learning skills due to poor diet and lack of sleep since she sleeps most nights afraid due to the high crime area she is forced to live in. Kaisha is not popular has never known her father and does not have nice clothes like the other kids who make fun of her and she thinks of suicide.

Her father then asked Katherin why she didn't request that the Dean's office for financial assistance for Kiasha and take some personal time to help her with her studies? Katherin Clearly riled by that suggestion, exclaimed, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked very hard why dosn't that dirty looser just kill herself and reduce the surface population thats draining our resouces?

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the GOP."

There's nothing wrong with collectivism as long as it's done by volunteer.

 

[granfire]

I repeat:

If it's fair to take money from person A who has a lot, to give to person B who has little,
it is also fair to take food from A who has much to give to B who has little.
it is also fair to take grade points from A who has a high level to aid person B who has a low level.

I can give you my A's, it still won't make you smarter.
:angel:

 

[Josh Oakley]

Katheran, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.

"I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."

He then asked about her friend Kaisha.

"She's not doing very well. Her GPA is 2.0 because she spends most of her time helping her single mother provide food and shelter for her 4 siblings . She often misses classes because she is to poor to get the medical treatments she needs to help with her disabilities and delayed congnative learning skills due to poor diet and lack of sleep since she sleeps most nights afraid due to the high crime area she is forced to live in. Kaisha is not popular has never known her father and does not have nice clothes like the other kids who make fun of her and she thinks of suicide.

Her father then asked Katherin why she didn't request that the Dean's office for financial assistance for Kiasha and take some personal time to help her with her studies? Katherin Clearly riled by that suggestion, exclaimed, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked very hard why dosn't that dirty looser just kill herself and reduce the surface population thats draining our resouces?

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the GOP."

This is a bunch of crap. I'm not GOP, and really disagree with many of their platforms, but demonizing them and mischaracterizing them only detracts from any meaningful conversation.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Is it right to take a surplus from one person to give to someone with a deficit?
Against their will.
By force.

Yes or no.


I say no. It's not right to steal. period.
Don't give be it's our responsibility to care for others, our duty, and so forth.
You are responsible for you, and those in your direct care (ie kids).
I don't want to pay taxes. I do so under duress. If I don't, the government will step in and steal my other property and deny me my freedom.
You can say that 'its the law', well, so is taking your car apart at intersections so as to not scare horses.
You can say it's our 'Christian Duty', well, then tax the Christians, not me.
You can say it's our responsibility, well, you handle it then, I got enough other things to deal with.
You can say it's just the 'right thing to do', and while you maybe right, that doesn't mean I should have to participate at gun point.
Just because some pols got together and wrote a 'law' that says it's ok for them to do it, it might make it 'legal', but it doesn't change the fact that it's still theft and still done under duress.

It's 2 separate arguments really.
It's "is right to steal" and "should we help others".

 

[Empty Hands]

Is it right to take a surplus from one person to give to someone with a deficit?
Against their will.
By force.

Yes or no.


I say no. It's not right to steal. period.

So all taxation is immoral theft, got it.

I don't want to pay taxes. I do so under duress. If I don't, the government will step in and steal my other property and deny me my freedom.

So you're a freeloader, got it. You don't want to pay for what you receive. If you don't want to pay taxes and don't want to be a freeloader, leave the country - that is the only route open to you. But don't call refusing to pay for what you receive the moral choice. You don't do it when people shoplift or default on their mortgages, so don't do it for people that refuse to pay their taxes. Freeloaders all.

 

[Master Dan]

This is a bunch of crap. I'm not GOP, and really disagree with many of their platforms, but demonizing them and mischaracterizing them only detracts from any meaningful conversation.

Relaly what do they do average, disadvantaged, low income or non white people every day? Get a bath and get a job? Yeh its crap alright they just can't seem to smell where its comming from. Trickle down theory has transformed to believe me when I tell you its raining and I'm peeing on your leg. The premise of the original thread is that all peopleare strugling because its thier fault, they are lazy, they do drugs, low morals on and on and many of the supposed solutions come from people who have 100 times more than they need and operate under the assumption that all they have came from thier own individual effort? Really out of 7 billion people you have two hand two legs a brain health and all by your self without any gratitude only a dog protecting its bone and in dog mentality your bone is not enough I want yours as well.

Yes Yes it may be a threat to those who feel bad about a law that mandates controls and contribution but its just as wrong to pass laws enfluenced by greed, special interest money to take away rights, safety, jobs and now even trying to take away voting rights which will be the last thing the right wants. This mentality that your worth is predicated by your possesions and bank account and the have nots are some how undesirable is the real class war. Lack of empathy is a curse on the person who has it and one day they will be doomed to walk in the same shoes of the person they are looking down at. 2012 president or not I hope there is a major change to through republicans out and entrenched corupted democrats as well and go back to rebuilding the US not breaking it up to sell of to make a profit.

I sat next to a prominent doctor of our community at a Christmas party a member of our church and he states he actually believes Herman Cain inocent and wanst to vote for anybody but Obama? what a racist elitist attitude!!! his wife as well as another person just publicly promoted in law enforcement wife are two of the most abrasive jerks in town that offend others with thier i'm so good and you should be like me and anybody who isn't is less worthy.

You are all delusional in your own propaganda and all I can say is when the hungry come to eat you maybe you will figure it out

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So all taxation is immoral theft, got it.

If you think otherwise, send in -more- on April 15th as a donation with your return. You've always had that ability, to donate money to the government.
I wonder why almost no one does that......

So you're a freeloader, got it.

No. I pay taxes. Therefore I am not a freeloader. The only freeloaders are the people who pay -no- taxes.

You don't want to pay for what you receive.

Like what?
I'm more than open to toll roads, fee's paid -directly- to the fire department and police departments for their services (file it under insurance).
I pay a water bill, an electric bill, a gas bill, phone bill and garbage bill.
I pay for all items shipped out by me via US Mail.
I don't have any kids in school....why should -I- keep paying school fees?
I'm now legally required to have health insurance, so I have it, never mind that when I didn't I hardly if ever needed it. Costs me more now than before. Whatever.
I've never been on welfare, never collected food stamps, never used HEAP, BELMONT or a dozen other such programs.

Hardly someone who doesn't pay for what they receive.
I even have supporting memberships on a dozen other communities that I lurk on to support them.

If you don't want to pay taxes and don't want to be a freeloader, leave the country - that is the only route open to you. But don't call refusing to pay for what you receive the moral choice. You don't do it when people shoplift or default on their mortgages, so don't do it for people that refuse to pay their taxes. Freeloaders all.

So buy me a plane ticket out of here then. Better yet, lets put it to a vote: Congress can pass a tax that will buy tickets for all willing to leave. You get to pay for my free 1 way away, and bang your chest and cry how you're a "patriot".

I'm not refusing to pay for it.
I have little choice.
If I refuse, they will come and arrest me.
Imprison me.
Steal my property.
So that some lazy good for nothing waste of fracking DNA can sit on their ***, drink losers kool aid, and watch gameshows all afternoon, while someone who has been busting their *** since they were 15 can pay for it.
I will pay, I will call you a thief, and I will damn you for it all.
I'll occupy a career and keep on producing so that 40% can consume without contribution.
Pthhhhpt!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

when the hungry come to eat you maybe you will figure it out

I will feed them a diet of cold steel and hot lead should they seek to take what is mine.
Bad enough the government steals 28% of what I make now.

 

[Grenadier]

Katheran, a college student who considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, challenged her father, a staunch Republican, on his opposition to taxes and welfare. He responded by asking about her grades.

"I have a 4.0 GPA," Katie replied, "but... school is tough. I have to study all of the time, and don't have any free time to go out and party. I have little time for my friends, and no time at all for a boyfriend."

He then asked about her friend Kaisha.

"She's not doing very well. Her GPA is 2.0 because she spends most of her time helping her single mother provide food and shelter for her 4 siblings . She often misses classes because she is to poor to get the medical treatments she needs to help with her disabilities and delayed congnative learning skills due to poor diet and lack of sleep since she sleeps most nights afraid due to the high crime area she is forced to live in. Kaisha is not popular has never known her father and does not have nice clothes like the other kids who make fun of her and she thinks of suicide.

Her father then asked Katherin why she didn't request that the Dean's office for financial assistance for Kiasha and take some personal time to help her with her studies? Katherin Clearly riled by that suggestion, exclaimed, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked very hard why dosn't that dirty looser just kill herself and reduce the surface population thats draining our resouces?

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the GOP."

How about we avoid the broad brush painting in this forum?

Your above example doesn't exactly help win support for the argument, when you turn off the potential listeners with such methods.

 

[billc]

I agree with Bob and Josh. Also, by any measure, conservative christians are found to actually give more to charity so Master Dan's point is incorrect. The girl in that example actually does have a lot of help available through both government welfare programs and private help, and universities are full of money for scholarships to the truly needy. Back in the 90's it was said that of all the welfare money given to those who needed it, only 26 cents of every government dollar went to the actual recipient. I wonder if that has stayed the same or if it has increased.

What always confuses me is when people who support the government taking money from one person to allegedly give it to another person in greater need, why is it that most of the time the bulk of that money ends up going to the politicians and their friends, and the person who had the money taken is called the bad guy?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People will say "Geeze Bob, you're a heartless bastid.".
No. I'm not.
I donate to food pantries, various charities and a dozen causes regularly.
By choice.
Not because if I don't, I goto jail.

Do I think there are people out there with legitimate needs, honest bad luck, who need help?
Yup.
Do I think we should help them?
Yup.
Do I think the person who walks by a starving kid while eating a foot long from Subway is a jerk?
Yup.

Do I think the government should require that jerk to share?

Nope.

It's too easy for the government to pass more taxes to cover up shortages, rather than run efficiently.

Why is the person who insists on keeping what they earn, and that others live responsibly the 'bad guy'?

 

[Steve]

Personally, I think a middle ground is the way to go. Charging a fee for service for critical functions like the fire dept or the police means only those with the means to pay can afford emergency care. I refuse to believe that Bob's example was anything more than an extreme philosophical position and not a real world case. Suggesting that the fire dept. take a visa payment prior to putting out a house fire, or the police respond only on a fee for service basis is, in my opinion, a ridiculous position to take.

However, we do pay a lot in taxes and in some cases, don't get a lot in return.

There's a middle ground. I also believe that this is a situation where both sides have completely legitimate positions. This isn't about one side being right or wrong. This particular thread articulates two fundamentally different philosophical beliefs, and then dips into the reality of applying either of these positions in real life. Philosophy is clean. Life is messy.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Steve, we are now required to have health insurance, by law, regardless of ability to pay for it. I see nothing wrong if that position is acceptable, in requiring that everyone purchase 'police coverage' and 'fire protection' under the -exact same terms- as the health bill was passed.

Let me rephrase:
Charging a fee for service for critical functions like the Hospital or Doctor means only those with the means to pay can afford emergency care.

Charging a fee for service for critical functions like Education means only those with the means to pay can afford to learn.

Charging a fee for critical necessities like food and water means only those with the means to pay can afford to live.

Charging a fee for critical necessities like clothing means only those with the means to pay can afford to wear pants.

Charging a fee for critical necessities like shelter and housing means only those with the means to pay can afford a roof over their heads.


Now, while I think that everyone should have health care, schooling, food, water, shelter and of course pants, I don't think the government should be involved.
Some would argue otherwise, and that's fine.
They are welcome of course to contribute more voluntarily.



I am of course possibly being extreme, possibly serious, possibly tongue in cheek, or possibly bored between Scooby Doo episodes.

 

[Xue Sheng]

If it's fair to take money from person A who has a lot, to give to person B who has little,
it is also fair to take food from A who has much to give to B who has little.
it is also fair to take grade points from A who has a high level to aid person B who has a low level.

If it is not right to take surplus from one to benefit one with a deficit in -1- case, it is therefore not right in -any- case.

You can argue 'responsibility', 'duty', and so forth.
Those arguments don't matter.

It's not the job of government to enforce those.

Charity done at gun point, is not charity.

I posted this on my Facebook wall...
It got -UGLY-.

The argument was given that these services/systems exist because people want them.
Because people don't want the sick to suffer, the hungry to starve, and the old to be abandoned.
All honorable and just things, IMO.
But.
The argument was that these services are forced on us, because the people want these services forced on us, because if we didn't force the people into this forced giving, then they otherwise would not give, so that the people they didn't want to suffer would end up suffering.

Think about it.

"I don't want you to suffer, but I don't want to freely give you my money so I want these other people to force me to give it to you so that I can help you."

The illogic of it all would choke a Vulcan.

Those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.

 

[Makalakumu]

This particular thread articulates two fundamentally different philosophical beliefs, and then dips into the reality of applying either of these positions in real life. Philosophy is clean. Life is messy.

If I put on a fancy costume, come to your house with a gun, and demand money, what am I?

The problem that this thread addresses revolves around the use of force when it comes to solving societies problem. Talking about the government is actually a red herring. The "government" is just a group of people who are initiating the use of force against another group of people within in the confines of imaginary lines drawn on paper. The initiation of force is the impetus that moves money from one hands to another, or as in the case of this example, grade points from one person to another.

So, when I say it's not moral to steal from me or threaten me, I'm not saying that I don't care about the poor. I'm not saying that I people who can't pay should watch their property burn down. I'm not saying that the physically weaker need to line up like sheep for the predators. I'm not saying that the sick should just die if they can't pay.

I'm saying that stealing and extortion are wrong and I'm suggesting that we find other solutions for problems that don't involve aspects that are fundamentally immoral.

This is an easy concept to understand. A five year old could explain it. The problem is that there are way to many political terms that have long trains of convoluted ideas that make excuses for stealing. There are too many people whose entire livelihood would disappear if stealing were to be considered absolutely immoral.

The bottom line is this, however, we won't have a healthy and sustainable society until we address this issue.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Fire insurance at work.

http://consumerist.com/2011/12/fire...n-to-the-ground-because-of-unpaid-75-fee.html
[h=2]Firefighters Watch Another House Burn To The Ground Because Of Unpaid $75 Fee[/h]

The deal is this: If you live in the city limits of South Fulton, your property gets service from the firefighters. Live outside city limits, then your option is to ante up the $75 or risk losing everything to a fire.

According to the AP, the homeowners — who are staying for a couple of nights at a local hotel, courtesy of the Red Cross — had no insurance on the property.

So, they could have had Fire Insurance which would have gotten a fire department to put the fire out, but chose not to pay for it.
They also decided against buying insurance on the house and property.
End result, they lost everything.

So because they chose to be irresponsible, I should feel sorry for them and blame the fire department?
Nope.

 

[Makalakumu]

Fire insurance at work.

http://consumerist.com/2011/12/fire...n-to-the-ground-because-of-unpaid-75-fee.html
Firefighters Watch Another House Burn To The Ground Because Of Unpaid $75 Fee





So, they could have had Fire Insurance which would have gotten a fire department to put the fire out, but chose not to pay for it.
They also decided against buying insurance on the house and property.
End result, they lost everything.

So because they chose to be irresponsible, I should feel sorry for them and blame the fire department?
Nope.

You know Bob, I would feel bad for them. I might choose to help them depending on the circumstances. I would also tell my friends to not do that.

Stupid is forgivable sometimes, but you can't force someone to do it.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Has everyone forgotten the whole "representation" part of taxation? The government isn't a tyrant or a burglar putting a gunt to your head, requiring payment by force. The American people, via their collective choice, put those legislators in place to determine tax rates.

I know I know, that doesn't fit into the narrative. Just ignore the detail.