Obama will be speaking to all the school children of America this week

[FarmerChick]

***simply don't believe in refusing to help another one because they don't appear deserving. I also don't believe in ENABLING them and would certainly try to teach them skills so they could help themselves. However, either way, I think people should be helped.


No one said don't help those in true need.
What I want is the fraud taken out of the agencies. Those that "can" but will not. Then there is more money for the deserving.

We enable every day. When the fraud is not stopped! When we do not demand the govt. monitor their agencies to the point of fixing the hemoraage of money.

This is the real world. The bible didn't throw in govt. monies, riches by others, some for none, the cost of your property taxes, the cost of your income taxes, the cost of every damn thing in this life to live. While helping mankind is obviously kind and it should happen...you can not TAKE constantly from others to prove your bible points. You can not steal from others because YOU think they should do what you THINK they should do. Should we care more....probably yes. Is there tons of caring out there...yes. Could we do more...maybe....should we steal from others and over-tax just because they have money..NO! You are no better than a thief at that point.

Not everyone will ever give up their life or lifestyles or their childrens future monies for the poor. Why should they? If you are of kind heart you give what you can etc....if you do not want to give extra, then you have that right.

Tax dollars does what it can. If it is not enough, go fix the problem of why so MUCH money can not do what it is supposed to accomplish.

_______________
how can you say this in the same sentence---I don't despise wealthy folks. Just those who live WAY, WAY more extravagantly than most people could even imagine and don't share any.

That is so sad. WAY WAY is the description when you begin to despise people cause they have money.

THOSE with WAY WAY more probably dump many millions into charity.
Honestly.....

It is this predjudice (not alot of course, just a little) that means it is OK to segregate, use for your own profit, ignore their rights as citizens etc. but smile the whole time because you are ONLY alientating a "small" group of citizens. Just the WAY WAY rich. Sure that makes it OK.












There is no doubt deserving need help.
There is no doubt that many need to help.
There is no doubt that there are tons of dollars spent into the system to do just that.
There is help out there.
NOW---we must pillage from "people" with MORE just to feed the poor......"us" middle class don't want to give anymore now do we.....so lets just go after the ones with WAY WAY more and TAKE it from them.

Fix the problems. Stop looking for money and pouring it into the system--one that is not great!!!

Demand from your govt. that fraud be stopped, over-spending be controlled.....that the govt. accounts for their spending.

No, too much work---don't want to get involved----figure what the heck we can't change anything---------oh wait, lets just rob the rich....they have money.

People don't truly take any action against the govt. for their wasteful spending.....yet we find the next fall guy....the wealthy guy that we can steal from and fix our little money problem in this country.

My goodness....does not anyone see this is useless.

Take money from any wealthy person you can to fund a dying system???

Lets just crap all over the rich now. I can't give up my cable tv, I can't pay my bills easily and buy my kids all those school supplies they need, I can't be taxed more.....oh wait, lets just take more and more money from the rich. Heck it is just money, they won't mind if we take EXTRA and rob them cause we need it to take care of the poor and those less fortunate. I am doing my part, now lets just steal more from people with more to make up the difference.

Oh my this is just shameful.

 

[patandchickens]

Pat said: think it is unconscionable to say, let's not have programs to help those in need, just because we are less than 100% efficient in limiting 'em to just those who truly deserve them.
PAT-- no one has said this ever. There are tons of programs on every level from fed, to state, to county, to churches, to personal level for people helping neighbors.

Are you kidding? Of course that's being said.

Now I have no way of knowing what more complicated ideas or qualifications may exist in various posters' minds (and simply never made it to the keyboard).

But as far as what's being literally SAID... here are some quotes from the last coupla pages of this very thread. No offense is intended to anyone in particular, I'm just going back a few pages and showing you an assortment of statements to the effect that "the rich should not be forced to help the poor" with no further qualifiers on it. Many other people have posted similar, often more explicit, statements of the same things on other related recent threads on this forum:

"Should someone who worked hard for their money, earned their millions, and made something of themselves be forced to share their money? Give it to someone who needs it just because they (rich) aren't using it?"

"we shouldn't force people to give up what they worked for just because someone else needs it more than they do."

" It [the government] can not take from some cause they have more"

"one DOES not mean the other can just take...no matter what the reasons are..."

do not feel it is OK to just add--an extra 10%==15% to their tax on top of what is reasonable.....

Who gets to decide what is reasonable? You personally? Why not me personally (I have certainly never proposed that the rich give up more money than is, in my opinion, reasonable).


Pat

 

[patandchickens]

Oh, I can feel all those fingers firing up to tell me that isn't what you said, or that wasn't what you meant, and the argument shading that will result. It is what was said, and it is what you meant

(my boldfacing)

Scusi?

The generic you is astounded to know that you now have the power to READ OUR MINDS.

Could we keep this discussion a little bit more reality based please, like responding to what people actually WRITE, and if you want to impute different motives to them, at least acknowledge that you are *guessing*.


Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

No Pat

no one ever said the poor doesn't deserve help.

don't even imply it by snaking in a few out of context sentences.

The agencies who fund the poor must be controlled to the point of stopping the fraud, billions of dollars going to those who steal blatantly from the govt, you and me and the rich guy. taking all our monies...money meant for the deserving.


You can not OVER TAX to an unfair level.

Joe makes $10----tax him $1
Fred makes $15 ---tax him $1.24
Sue makes $50 ---tax her for $2.31
Pat makes $100---tax her for $53.00

Fair level of tax is what it should be.....to step in and up the anti on taxes for the rich to an unfair level of exteremes is not constitutional. You can not over-tax to an inproporiate level of taxing and expect a minority to cover the cost of a govt. It is tramping on their rights.

You can not just "pick" a number...the tax codes must be reasonable fair in their percentages. You can not "jump" the tax for the wealthy into an extraordinary high level of tax from the rest of the nation.

Fix the internal problems...the spending / the fraud. take back the existing billions that are not reaching those who need it

oh wait, too hard to do, hmm...lets just jump the tax for the rich and they can pay thru the nose into a lousey system that is not working


Don't fly in my book at all!!

 

[MorelCabin]

removed

 

[FarmerChick]

Think about it before you tell the government it's ok to dip into a 'rich person's' pocket because somehow they don't deserve all that money. There are people out there who don't think you deserve all that food you've got stockpiled.......

good point. take something that "someone else" has and see how it is OH SO OK to just rob it for yourself and others.

 

[patandchickens]

No Pat

no one ever said the poor doesn't deserve help.

don't even imply it by snaking in a few out of context sentences.

"Snaking in"???

Look, I readily admit I do not know what people mean in their heart of hearts.

However, you can go back to the posts those quotes were taken from... there WAS NO additional qualifier like "although sometimes people may really genuinely need help and the better-off may have to be required to provide it". In fact in one instance you did, in fact, WRITE "no matter what the reasons are".

If everybody actually MEANS "oh ok, it is fine to ask the well-off to contribute somewhat disproportionately to the GENUINELY deserving [although, deserving in whose opinion?], I just don't want them contibuting disproportionately to fraud or poor filtering of recipients which honestly nobody wants to have going on anyhow"... then that would be a wonderful situation and I would be glad to have misunderstood.

Although, I really don't *think* I have.

Fair level of tax is what it should be.....to step in and up the anti on taxes for the rich to an unfair level of exteremes is not constitutional. You can not over-tax to an inproporiate level of taxing

Fair as defined HOW and BY WHOM. Can't be just by you. Meaning, other peoples' opinions (including mine) should have some weight too, no?


Pat

 

[me&thegals]

Wow. I just give up. Maybe I will be dumb enough to reenter this conversation, but it seems to me as if some of you are deliberately misunderstanding this conversation.

I will just make ONE more point before I go. Please define reasonable taxation. I think that is the crux of this entire argument. FarmerChick, you don't want the rich "crapped on." I actually have a wealthy relative or 2 and have heard their side also. They both worked quite hard for it. I guess we are all arguing over what is reasonable taxation. I bet this argument is almost as old as the earth itself.

Ok, actually 2 more points FC, the bible certainly was lived in the times of unfair taxation. It had great rulers, it had horrible rulers, and these arguments and problems are as old as the earth. If you think the lessons of the bible don't still apply, I guess that's your prerogative. I happen to think they do.

 

[patandchickens]

Think about it before you tell the government it's ok to dip into a 'rich person's' pocket because somehow they don't deserve all that money. There are people out there who don't think you deserve all that food you've got stockpiled.......

You know what?

You're quite mistaken, in what you're implying I'd think about that.

I actually DO think that, if I had stockpiled (say) two years' worth of food and some catastrophe happened such that most other people around here had only two weeks' worth of food... then it would be RIGHT for me to be required to share.

Yes, even share with those who could perfectly well have stockpiled food themselves but didnt'.

I would not be thrilled to have it happen -- obviously, since it is darn hard for a person to put aside their personal interest to look at the larger picture, and some amount of 'looking out for number one' tends to remain -- but I would wince and SUPPORT IT. I would feel it was the right thing to do and that if I wasn't going to do it voluntarily (and I can't swear that I would), it was legitimately the gov't's business to ensure I did it.

I am sorry I'm not as me-first a fan of dog-eat-dog processes as some other folks are, but, you know.

I would point out that people with this attitude often do pretty well in surviving times of difficulty, on account of they can cooperate with others and work together a lot more easily than if they're concerned mainly with keeping as much as possible for themselves out of fear that only by having as much stuff as possible will they be able to survive.

So it is not necessarily as dysfunctional as you seem to expect... although my reason for believing this way is not mainly pragmatism, it's that I think there are some ethical principles that are pretty darn important per se.

You don't have to agree with me of course! But I want you to know that your view of what's best for a person and their society is not necessarily the only view that can be strongly held.

Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

Pat you are missing the point.

If Joe is taxed X percent on his income level
Sue is taxed X percent on her income level
Fred is taxed X percent on his income level

(all the while these tax percentages are not that far from each other)...reasonable increase in taxes per income level

then Bill---the super rich...he gets taxed TRIPLE off the charts and all from the others being taxed. WAY more than the fair tax being established on the other levels.

but since Bill is over X dollars----we can TRIPLE rape this man of his money cause others need it.


I don't know how you can't see what a fair tax sysetm is.

if you want to increase the rich guys tax, then increase everyone elses to a proportionate level. Simple as that. Everyone pays more!!! Not just an alienaged few that throws that group into discrimination from the govt by income level. Voilating his rights to fair taxation.

_____________________



there are tons of programs out there to help

people help people in their communities

and rich people, however they got their money, never means anyone can just "take more" cause someone else might need "something more" then they are already receiving and are eligible for from the govt. and private charity organizations.

the poor are in their status for whatever reason and poor pay taxes like everyone else to help "the truly deserving poor who have nothing and maybe disabilities and all that"

the struggling middle class slob who foots tons of taxes for tons of govt. agencies to handle these problems are in their status for "however long"

the rich are in their status for whatever reason who foot tons of taxes to handle national problems

one DOES not mean the other can just take...no matter what the reasons are...



NOW READ HOW MY "no matter what the reasons are"

My "no matter what the reasons are" means there is programs out there to help the poor already. Refine, re-tune, stop the fraud and waste and target the money where it belongs.

My no matter what the reasons are means no extremely high taxation out of porportion to other tax levels.

It means no matter what the reasons are ---you can discriminate, alienate, over-tax to violation of rights a single class of people (the rich) because you "just feel like it"