Fair Tax - Page 4

Greenwave81 · 07-13-2007, 09:36 PM

[QUOTE=CanadaSteve]I am not a believer of the welfare system either, unless we are talking about helping those that truly cannot help themselves, such as people who are crippled and cannot work, those with severe mental disabilities, etc...

But if you can work, you should....plain and simple.

This does raise another concern though...I am a firm believer in charity, as long as someone is doing something to earn it. But I also believe that one of our goals ought to ensure as a right of all people, the ability to have enough food, water and a place to live. If we take that on collectively, I honestly think you would see a great deal of crime go down. As long as people's basic needs are met, I think things would be better off. But yes, while I think money would be better directed to ensuring this, I still think if people are capable of working, they must.[/QUOTE]

Jeez Steve...you are all over the map.

You are against welfare, but for ensuring that every person has a 'right' (there's that word again...reminds me..you owe me a reply in the Force and Faith thread) to enough food, water and a place to live. What if someone is an able-bodied man who is recalcitrant and refuses to work (probably, to some extent, because he has a right to someone elses assets)? What if that able-bodied man is satisfied with what you are offering....do we take care of him for the 70+ years of his natural born life? Who decides who is needy, and who is just a parasite? Who tells the parasite to get off his a$$ and work?

And, as long as we're talking about 'basic needs', how about you define them for us. Like food...are we talking bland, but nutritious, 1200 calories a day? 2000 calories? More? Their choice? Do they stand in a government food line for excess, or do they get money to shop? If they get money to shop, who makes sure their buying food anyway?

With regard to 'a place to live'....do we set up big tents with cots/sleeping bags or permanent structures? Air conditioning? Central heating? 400 sqft single rooms or a separate bedroom for everyone? TV? Telephone? Cable?

Why do you assume that the majority of crime is due to people lacking 'basic' needs and not just plain old criminal behavior? Maybe we should have just given the criminal more 'basic' needs (you know, like that big screen TV or a computer), and maybe then he would have left us alone?

Even individualist me has no problem taking care of the truly needy, but it is already well beyond that point here in the US, where 'basic' needs include food, shelter (with heat/AC), phone (land and cell), cars and medical care amongst others. There are entire generations of families whose definition of work is putting down the government subsidized food and going to their mailbox from their government subsidized dwelling to see if the next check has arrived. We have the fattest 'needy' people on the planet, a lot of whom lack even the most basic desire to care for themselves...and why should they when society will do it for them?

We've had this discussion before, and we disagree..but you cannot give things to people that they did not earn and expect them to be satisfied. It destroys them as individuals as they never learn to care for themselves. You said that you believe in charity as long as someone does somethng to earn it...I agree...but if you feel this way, how can you believe in government welfare (needed to ensure the 'rights' you desire)?

We all feed and shelter our kids, as they cannot care for themselves...but how many of us would support our kids [b]unconditionally[/b] for all of their adult lives if they just decided they didn't want to work and sat around the house all day? Why would I treat a lazy stranger better (and different) than I would treat my own kid?

parafly · 07-14-2007, 12:42 AM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]well, i don't think we should stop people from having more money in their pockets because they might waste it. foolish people will be careless with their money, sensible people will use money wisely. i'd rather have the option to do manage more of money than having the gov't mismanage it.[/QUOTE]

Good point. The fair tax would definitely take financial power away from the government and give it to the people. This is a good thing on its surface especially if most of the population takes the tax benefits and uses them wisely.

My point is that the survival and continuity of the government would become entirely dependent on consumers. This is not necessarily a good thing given the world we live in and the threats we face. If the country is hit by a depression or major terrorist attack, our government could collapse due to reductions in production, supply, and ultimately purchasing.

PlumberKhan · 07-14-2007, 09:50 AM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]i'm sure we disagree on something, but you nailed everything in this poist[/QUOTE]

Disagreement is the fertilizer for our democracy. If you ever find yourself in a political party in which EVERYBODY agrees on EVERYTHING then get out. Run. It's not natural to have a large group of people in static agreement. But manipulative politicians who makes careers out of exploiting the differences between voting blocks hold political parties hostage. They try to get in the voters head so much that they have college educated linguists who use focus groups to study people reaction to words and phrases. WTF? We are citizens, not lab rats in some elaborate Orwellian experiment.

07-13-2007, 09:36 PM	#61
Greenwave81 a JETS fan since '68...and I BELIEVE! All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri Posts: 3,884	[QUOTE=CanadaSteve]I am not a believer of the welfare system either, unless we are talking about helping those that truly cannot help themselves, such as people who are crippled and cannot work, those with severe mental disabilities, etc... But if you can work, you should....plain and simple. This does raise another concern though...I am a firm believer in charity, as long as someone is doing something to earn it. But I also believe that one of our goals ought to ensure as a right of all people, the ability to have enough food, water and a place to live. If we take that on collectively, I honestly think you would see a great deal of crime go down. As long as people's basic needs are met, I think things would be better off. But yes, while I think money would be better directed to ensuring this, I still think if people are capable of working, they must.[/QUOTE] Jeez Steve...you are all over the map. You are against welfare, but for ensuring that every person has a 'right' (there's that word again...reminds me..you owe me a reply in the Force and Faith thread) to enough food, water and a place to live. What if someone is an able-bodied man who is recalcitrant and refuses to work (probably, to some extent, because he has a right to someone elses assets)? What if that able-bodied man is satisfied with what you are offering....do we take care of him for the 70+ years of his natural born life? Who decides who is needy, and who is just a parasite? Who tells the parasite to get off his a$$ and work? And, as long as we're talking about 'basic needs', how about you define them for us. Like food...are we talking bland, but nutritious, 1200 calories a day? 2000 calories? More? Their choice? Do they stand in a government food line for excess, or do they get money to shop? If they get money to shop, who makes sure their buying food anyway? With regard to 'a place to live'....do we set up big tents with cots/sleeping bags or permanent structures? Air conditioning? Central heating? 400 sqft single rooms or a separate bedroom for everyone? TV? Telephone? Cable? Why do you assume that the majority of crime is due to people lacking 'basic' needs and not just plain old criminal behavior? Maybe we should have just given the criminal more 'basic' needs (you know, like that big screen TV or a computer), and maybe then he would have left us alone? Even individualist me has no problem taking care of the truly needy, but it is already well beyond that point here in the US, where 'basic' needs include food, shelter (with heat/AC), phone (land and cell), cars and medical care amongst others. There are entire generations of families whose definition of work is putting down the government subsidized food and going to their mailbox from their government subsidized dwelling to see if the next check has arrived. We have the fattest 'needy' people on the planet, a lot of whom lack even the most basic desire to care for themselves...and why should they when society will do it for them? We've had this discussion before, and we disagree..but you cannot give things to people that they did not earn and expect them to be satisfied. It destroys them as individuals as they never learn to care for themselves. You said that you believe in charity as long as someone does somethng to earn it...I agree...but if you feel this way, how can you believe in government welfare (needed to ensure the 'rights' you desire)? We all feed and shelter our kids, as they cannot care for themselves...but how many of us would support our kids [b]unconditionally[/b] for all of their adult lives if they just decided they didn't want to work and sat around the house all day? Why would I treat a lazy stranger better (and different) than I would treat my own kid?

07-14-2007, 12:42 AM	#62
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,315	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]well, i don't think we should stop people from having more money in their pockets because they might waste it. foolish people will be careless with their money, sensible people will use money wisely. i'd rather have the option to do manage more of money than having the gov't mismanage it.[/QUOTE] Good point. The fair tax would definitely take financial power away from the government and give it to the people. This is a good thing on its surface especially if most of the population takes the tax benefits and uses them wisely. My point is that the survival and continuity of the government would become entirely dependent on consumers. This is not necessarily a good thing given the world we live in and the threats we face. If the country is hit by a depression or major terrorist attack, our government could collapse due to reductions in production, supply, and ultimately purchasing.

07-14-2007, 09:50 AM	#63
PlumberKhan HAIL SATAN! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,074	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]i'm sure we disagree on something, but you nailed everything in this poist[/QUOTE] Disagreement is the fertilizer for our democracy. If you ever find yourself in a political party in which EVERYBODY agrees on EVERYTHING then get out. Run. It's not natural to have a large group of people in static agreement. But manipulative politicians who makes careers out of exploiting the differences between voting blocks hold political parties hostage. They try to get in the voters head so much that they have college educated linguists who use focus groups to study people reaction to words and phrases. WTF? We are citizens, not lab rats in some elaborate Orwellian experiment.