On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote: > > "I pay taxes as a form of charity. I probably could have figured some way > around that. I doubt I'll ever die, ether." > > Well, if it makes you feel better, that's a good way to look at it. >
I like to feel like I have a choice, one way or another. =) ... > "Charity" ain't like that. You can't sue a church for not giving you soup-- > there's no accountability. =)" > > Yes, there is. You hold the charity accountable. Don't give if they don't > live up to your standards. Think of the United Way. Years ago, the > director got busted for taking first class flights and such. Donations went > down dramatically. > Yeah, and we could do stuff like not give to a charity if they help gay people! > "And aren't we like, paying less taxes than ever before, or something like > that? Where's that damn graph..." > > No. Remember, the temporary income tax is less than 100 years old. > I wonder how much we paid 500,000 years ago? > > "*sob*! I'm crying with laughter. The country was *sooooo* fiscally > responsible before The One." > > Wrong. Not even close. Our country has been fiscally irresponsible for > decades. And like I said, I don't blame the One for my losses. It was 100% > my fault. > But The Marxist didn't help, eh? That was when debt became "bad". > > "We had a surplus, right? That was thanks to "conservative" ideals, neh?" > > No. There haven't been conservative ideals in office for decades. > Not even the first Bush? > "I don't want or expect the government to help me one bit either, ... " > > Kudos It seems like most people don't, but I'm probably biased. There are tons of ways for people to get *lots* of money from the government, that are hardly taken advantage of. Maybe people just don't know, even with the books explaining how. > > "...tho I suspect the difference between you and I, is that I don't mind if > the government helps other folk. Even if, *gasp* it spends my hard-earned > money to do so." > > Exactly. I want to help people with my hard earned money directly. Take > out the proxy altogether, especially considering the waste and bureaucracy > my money would have to go through if it went through the government. There's also good things about "pooling resources", so to speak. Interest alone... You know some people are so rich, they can live off the interest on their money? And then there's "buying power", that if we actually paid attention to (unlike like the deal we have with Colt), we can leverage to good effect. > > "Heh. Churches had to reform their welfare too. Now they ask for IDs and > whatnot more often than not. So they know you ain't just some local bum, > abusing The System." > > It's a sign of the times. > > On a tangent involving churches and private charities versus government > charity: Government charity removes all moral components from receiving > charity. There is no moral code of conduct that is expected. Also, charity > is soon viewed as an entitlement, so gratitude is removed. If the charity > is removed, resentment sets in. > Taking stuff for granted isn't something limited to government charity. And we already covered that abuse isn't limited to government charity either. Plus there's that whole deal about Churches and Taxes, and not-exactly-transparent book-keeping. At least with the government, we've got a chance to follow along at home, so to speak. > > "Although, hell, maybe you ain't arguing that folk are generally leeches?" > > Nope. I honestly believe most people want to be left alone. Sometimes they > need a hand. It should be up to you and me as individuals to help out. You and I alone can't do nearly as much as millions of people together. We spend *insane* amounts of money each year. Some people argue that we could wipe out starvation and whatnot, if we wanted to. > > "Maybe you believe that people are generally decent, and just have this odd > idea that it's fine to spend money on stuff like bullets & bombs, but > spending it on bread & medicine is crazy talk? Because /that/ will be > abused. Unlike, say, deals for making assault rifles, boots, and bullet > proof vests." > > I never said anything about bullets and bombs. Of course, the way things > are running in metropolitan area projects, it might be a good idea to hand > out bullet proof vests, rifles, and boots. I'll give you a "great" deal on them, but you can only buy them from me. ;-) I don't recall you raging against the war machine when it went a rumbling through our finances. Demanding cuts to defense spending until we had our budget under control, etc.. > And, if you want to way in on military expenditures, I don't have problem > with that. But don't single out just military. Look at all of the other > areas where the government spends. Sure! A real conservative would, right? Weigh in on the whole she-bang! A real conservative would have been bitching the whole time, and not "recently" trying to pin crap on Marxism, which obviously isn't the cause of most of our money woes. Note my reference to crappy defense contracts. You already know how I feel about Big Business and the Government. Is welfare *really* the main reason we're in the red? You sound like a real conservative. But you're kidding yourself if you think even 10% of the other "conservatives" share your beliefs. Mention cuts to the military and see how far you get. Even if you're all like, "but it's just one piece to my proposed budget reform!". But that's neither here nor there, really. Eh. :Den -- The rich will do anything for the poor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:323923 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
