Are we created equal?

They learned from you conservatives, and I might add they are applying lessons learned quite well!

 

Really? I would have sworn we had British poor laws in the colonial times to assist the old, poor health and unemployed. Just amazing how cons can revise American history.

"Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began."

http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/

 

Yes, the government stepped in to solve the problem it created and the circle jerk continues to this present day....

- - - Updated - - -

 

Guess you are WRONG again,.............

Alexander Hamilton, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature. Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

 

It can't be done by individuals but it can be done by government? Is the government supernatural or something?

 

Can you defend against an invading country by yourself?

 

Guess you're WRONG again..... Look up the definition of general...... Education benefits ALL. Agriculture benefits ALL. Infrastructure benefits ALL.

Food stamps benefit a select few that society deems "needy" ad infinitum. Not to mention, every penny spent has to be FORCEFULLY taken from someone else. You going to argue confiscating my earnings benefits ME?

 

No. How is that relevant? There's nothing supernatural about government; it's simply many individuals cooperating in a certain way.

 

You're still missing the main point. Why would a government be concerned about it's economy? Oh, right, I remember now. A nation with a weak economy is a weak nation. Why would you be okay with this?

And yes, 'confiscating your earnings' (all 30% which is partially returned to you each new year) benefits you. Again, without money flowing, there's no jobs. A business isn't going to hire people when no there's no demand, and it must be said, demand only translates into a healthy economy when that demand can fueled by spending power of the consumer. If you're ignoring this fundamental fact of how an economy works, yes, what you're saying would make sense. But since that's not the case, because you don't see directly how it benefits you, since that money didn't go to a school you can go up and see and touch and see students at or whatever, but is more of a socially beneficial thing which does, indeed, help you, you can keep your head in the sand. Just know that when a nation has many spenders, it's got lots of money. When it's only a got a few spenders, it's circling the drain. We started spinning quite a while ago. And it's funny too that you work in health and services because the government probably gives you your paycheck indirectly through these programs since you say you deal with poor people and their problems. If the government stopped paying for this social service, you would likely be out of a job.

To quote 95% of your posts:

 

Really? I don't recall ever claiming government was "supernatural" to begin with.

 

I hate to break the news to you but we could have a healthy, vibrant economy with ZERO government intervention. Government doesn't create anything on it's own. It has to TAKE from economic resources in order to function DUH.

 

My god, the level of ignorance and level of arrogance in your posts is off the scale. It's like the two are directly proportional when most people recognize they should be INVERSELY proportional.

Your entire argument is based on 'TAKE' and then you switch it to 'it's okay to build roads, I can see them' but then you toss out the entire basis of what makes a strong nation because it's something you don't just SEE, it's all around you...LIKE THE MATRIX (scary (*)(*)(*)(*)) OOOOOH!

And if you want to see what a vibrant economy is, how's this for an example of what happens in purely free market:

The whole article is here: http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-libertarian-paradise-would-be-hell-on-earth-2013-12

Some of it is pretty hilarious.

And it's all stuff in your flawed logic that would happen. We've had anarcho systems before. We know that when there's very few people, it's very nice. When there's a lot of people, it's a disaster. Why do you think single sells decided to form up into complex lifeforms in the first place? It's mutually beneficial to all cells involved.

 

I didn't mention a purely free market.......I mentioned government intervention as opposed to facilitation such as building a road......

Have you ever taken a college level economics course?

 

I'm guessing that you did. And didn't listen to a thing or it was an online class and you didn't bother but writing 2 sentences for your papers.

EDIT: I'll also add your stance is unclear. You're more interested in putting down people who comment on your pedestrian grasp of the subject when they call you out on it (and for the most part, people are correct when they do even when I don't agree with those people either in terms of what they believe in) and so it's just laughable that you would really ask me that question. Because when someone else gives the exact same response to you, you think you win. But notice how I am not doing that. Because there's no need for that pissing contest you keep bringing here.

 

More about socioeconomic reification:

[video=youtube_share;RqlxrQ2iE8s]http://youtu.be/RqlxrQ2iE8s[/video]

 

Then how is government distinguishable from cooperating individuals?

 

Do you consider our government a group of cooperating individuals?

 

equal taxation, no more paying less per dollar earned for non-labored income then labored income... is hardly wealth redistribution, it's just fair


.

 

You'd have a point if YOU paid a different capital gains rate but you don't so your point is invalid. It's not rich people's fault you're too lazy or incapable of investing your earnings so STOP attempting to take your shortcomings out on other people.

 

Besides.... "poor" people don't pay taxes anyway once you add in their "entitlements".

 

what does that have to do with non-labored income being taxed less then labored income?

stop trying to make people that labor for their income pay a higher tax rate then those that do not labor for their income....


.

 

That's what it is. When we say the "government" does something or a "company" does something, we're talking metaphorically. In reality, certain individuals are interacting with other certain individuals in a certain way that produces certain results. What do you consider government? Something higher than human?

 

Because when progressives use terms like non-labored is means capital gains.

EVERYONE pays the same capital gains rate and is subject to the same rules on income.

I guess I'd have to start before I stop.....

The top 1% alone, pay roughly 40% of the entire federal income tax burden at an effective rate around 23%.

The bottom quintile pays ZERO% of the entire federal income tax burden at an effective rate of MINUS 9%.

We KNOW who actually pays taxes and who gets a free pass.

 

Yes, I consider the federal government as an extension of God himself.

 

Are you being sarcastic or sincere?