Are we created equal?

Ok... So answer this simple question:

Do you support "social welfare" AKA food stamps, section 8 housing, free day care, Medicaid, cell phones, earned income credit ad infinitum???????

A. YES, I believe the person receiving them is MORE entitled to the persons earnings than the person who actually earned them

B. NO, all forms of wealth redistribution are IMMORAL, unless voluntary

So, go ahead and answer A so you'll PROVE "that MOST(if not all) progressives believe they're entitled to other peoples earnings".

Your participation by answering the simple question and proving my point is greatly appreciated in advance.

 

Tell you what. Let's play a little game. It's called, first you answer the question I asked, and then I will address yours.

 

Ah... the old moral majority logical fallacy. So if my friends and I(moral majority) think it's moral to rape your mom(minority), does it make the action moral?

I don't care if 99% of the country wants to confiscate/steal every dime they didn't earn..... Stealing is stealing so stop attempting to justify it for "the greater good".

You can't do "greater good" using immoral actions like stealing or murdering.

The rest of your post is simply justifying why you "think" you have the right to what other people earn.

- - - Updated - - -

You asked for proof. Now provide it please. THEN I'll answer YOUR question.

 

Cool, so it's awesome to drive an entire economy into the ground based on so-called morality.

Gotcha. You're a flippin' idiot. If you really feel that way, kick your kids out of your house. Nothing but law requires you to support them and they didn't earn anything. Kick 'em out.

 

Yeah, I asked you to prove your claim: "The fact is MOST progressives believe they're entitled to other peoples earnings."

And I'm still waiting for that answer and that proof.

 

Well, perhaps you should take a CLOSER look at WHO crashed the economy to begin with? And WHY? Let me know when you come to realization that our economy crashed do to a lack of ethics/morals.

I have a duty/obligation to raise my children and provide for their needs.

The FIRST duty/obligation ANY citizen has to a society is to be self sufficient first and foremost. Until then, you're a drain instead of a contributor, and drains on society cause harm.

 

Then answer the question I provided DUH. You KNOW it's true which is why you're avoiding answering it.

 

So you made a statement of fact, and you cannot prove your statement of fact is true without me answering your question?

We can put aside the fact that whatever I might say would be irrelevant to your assertion that "The fact is MOST progressives believe they're entitled to other peoples earnings" because do not purport to represent progressives.

You've established you had no basis for making your statement.

You were to bring up the strawman thing. But you should have applied it to yourself.

 

Sure I did. Anyone who supports social welfare is claiming the person who receives it is MORE entitled to the EARNINGS than the person who earned it DUH.

How many progressives do YOU know that don't advocate for social welfare AKA wealth redistribution? ZERO?

 

Which assertion, even if taken as true, in no way proves your "The fact is MOST progressives believe they're entitled to other peoples earnings." DUH.

Actually, most progressive and most conservatives I know support some form of it.

 

1. It's true. It's not even debatable.

2. You support the government taking it from who earned and handing it to another who didn't(usually another progressive but it makes no matter). You believe you have more a moral right to determine what happens with someone's earnings MORE than the person who earned it AKA you're more entitled. It doesn't matter WHAT YOU spend it on.......

That's because they're immoral unless it's handed out voluntarily AKA charity.

 

Thanks for your opinion, but your unsupported, baseless say-so doesn't establish anything.

I of course don't believe I have a right to determine what happens. The people of the country through their representatives do. But sure, the Govt has the moral right to collect taxes and then spend it in accordance with the wishes of the people. I think that, as does anyone who thinks the Govt can collect taxes.

 

How about the developmentally disabled, people who are 100% disabled on their 18th birthday.
Who pays for them?

 

No you don't. No one forces you to do anything with your children. You can drown them in a tub if you want. However, SOCIETY at large determines you should probably take care of your kids...which is why the state gets involved with charges, etc. when one does not do so. You're not obligated to (*)(*)(*)(*) with children by your logic. They didn't earn the right eat, so they shouldn't. You're donating food to them so you don't go to jail and call it an obligation, but donating food to the homeless so they don't starve and you don't go to jail (taxes) is theft.

It's a fellow human and you'd be just fine with sitting in the middle of the desert with the only glass of water amongst people dying of thirst. You are literally so callous as to not see how you sound. Keep bending things, but in hard economic facts of life, you do better and when everyone's doing better. Your likelihood of doing better ALSO increases. All that money out there, waiting to be given to you for your products and services!



Like it or not, morality, again, plays no part. Your 'thievery' justification is unfounded, especially since it's established that even things like schools and roads would be provided for by the state to ensure equal opportunity for all. Paid for with taxes. Stolen from you. (but for some reason you forgive this?) You can't even be consistent with your own argument so what's the point of your banging your paws on your keys anymore?

 

It appears you don't know the difference between opinion and fact.

NO, they have the MORAL right to collect taxes and spend based on the enumerated powers of the constitution...... The federal government DOES NOT have the authority to do whatever it wants. THIS would invalidate the constitution itself.

THIS is why FDR's legislation was ruled unconstitutional on several occasions. The government has NO MORAL AUTHORITY to participate in wealth redistribution. Unless you'd like to point out the specific text within the constitution?

 

First, you'd need to define disabled. I work with "disabled" people every day and MOST of them caused their disability through drug and alcohol abuse.

Who pays SHOULD be up to the states which DO have the moral authority to participate in wealth redistribution assuming their citizens agree.

 

You seem to not understand what the constitution is there for. It's a set of "These things do not get touched". Taxes were never discussed in this way in the constitution. This is where LAW comes in. LAWS cannot go AGAINST the constitution. Therefore there's nothing saying in the constitution you cannot collect taxes. In fact, it's just the opposite.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

So then you get into the whole "What is welfare?" This is where LAW comes in. If you don't like the LAW, then you can overturn that. However, constitutionally, taxes are perfectly legal. However, where I draw the line is for my tax dollars to go to people who defnitely don't need it. Like subsidies for very large, multi-million dollar earning corporations. If you want to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about taxes, this is where they're SUPREMELY wasted each year and why it feels like taxes are doing nothing.

 

You work WITH them or kick them down the stairs? I seem to detect you'd likely opt for the latter, in your infinite superiority attitude towards everyone and everything, (*)(*)(*)(*) you got mine stance.

Morally, there's nothing stopping from doing that in your own morality.

 

Ah, how progressive. You need to be FORCED to perform your duty and obligations.

People with solid morals and values do their obligations and duties WITHOUT external force being applied......

Ah, how progressive. You need to be FORCED to perform your duty and obligations.

People with solid morals and values do their obligations and duties WITHOUT external force being applied......

I'm extremely charitable. As a matter of fact, my entire life is dedicated to the service of my fellow humans as I'm a BSN RN psych nurse. I help others whenever I possibly can, wherever I possibly can.

The government is the NUMBER ONE BARRIER to my personal charity as it forcefully takes from me under the guise of helping others and ends up spending most of the money it collects on fraud, greed and corruption with only pennies on the dollar ever making it to someone in "need".

Not to mention murdering, maiming and torturing hundreds of thousands of humans across the globe with the same "benevolent" tax dollars.

Save the moral indignation for your government.

Yes, and me "doing better" is my responsibility. I prefer to EARN what I want to spend, not have the government forcefully confiscate it from someone else thank you.



Like it or not, morality, again, plays no part. Your 'thievery' justification is unfounded, especially since it's established that even things like schools and roads would be provided for by the state to ensure equal opportunity for all. Paid for with taxes. Stolen from you. (but for some reason you forgive this?) You can't even be consistent with your own argument so what's the point of your banging your paws on your keys anymore?[/QUOTE]

 

I'm a BSN RN psych nurse. I'm a pacifist who does everything they can to cause no direct harm to any other human being( or any life for that matter).

Don't bother pretending you can make moral judgments on my character as you're infinitely not qualified to do so.

 

OK, so the state pays, and of course the state takes the money from those who earned it.
What happened to your theory?

 

[/QUOTE]


Wait wait, so you're pissed cause you can directly see where the money you want to spend helping people you literally just made fun of?

So we uncover the core issue you have with taxes. You can no longer offer anything of substance as you're clearly arguing from an emotional point and used some random libertarian/liberalism argument you found on the internet that agreed with your emotionally predefined position and use it to try and argue your point.

Useless.

 

All you need to do to understand what the founding fathers meant by GENERAL WELFARE is:

A. Study what kinds of general welfare there was at the time which there was ZERO social welfare

B. Read the federalist papers.

Do these guys strike you as the kind of politicians who would dole out food stamps and section 8 housing?

 

No, that's your argument not mine.

No, that's your argument not mine.

I agree. Your strawman is useless, unless you're a farmer.

 

What happened is a HUGE amount of balance is restored between the states and the federal government. The REASON why "charity" and "benevolence" was SUPPOSED to be left to the states while the federal government had specific enumerated powers......

Care to take a guess at how much corporatism has sprouted around social welfare at the federal level?