On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote: > > "Yeah, and we could do stuff like not give to a charity if they help gay > people!" > > If you so chose. Likewise, gay people could choose to not help breeders.
Hey man, theoretically *we* control the government. Choice is in our power, if we care to exercise that power. For quite a bit of stuff. It takes teamwork though, neh? Maybe that's not such a bad thing. > > "But The Marxist didn't help, eh? That was when debt became 'bad'." > > Debt has always been bad. On a personal level and on a federal level. I remember a lot of folk saying that going into debt for the Iraq war was justified. I was (and still am) down for Afghanistan, but not Iraq. > > "Not even the first Bush?" > > Read my lips, "No new taxes". No, not a big fan of George the first. Ah. > "You know some people are so rich, they can live off the interest on their > money?" > > Yes they can. Some of these rich have started organizations to help > others. For example, the Ford Foundation. Yes, but the government makes it so even little, "poor" people can affect great change. I dislike relying on the top 1% to "do what's right" more than the government. > "Taking stuff for granted isn't something limited to government charity. > And we already covered that abuse isn't limited to government charity > either." > > You're right. However, when fraud is discovered with a private > organization, I can pick a new charity. I can't stop paying taxes without > going to jail. "If" fraud is discovered. There's a lot more fraud prevention stuff in place in the government. The VA *has* to release stuff that private hospitals don't. For instance. > > "Plus there's that whole deal about Churches and Taxes, and > not-exactly-transparent book-keeping." > > All nonprofit organization, including the unions and the federal gov't, > should have 100% transparent finances. If wishes were fishes. That's not how it works currently. And how can the government say "we're spending 3 bill on a black-ops type deal"? ;-) > "At least with the government, we've got a chance to follow along at home, > so to speak." > > Is that a joke? We have the *right* to force it to do so. "We" are in charge of it. I don't think we should have that right with private stuff, so much. > > "You and I alone can't do nearly as much as millions of people together." > > Ah. I kind of meant that as a kumbaya movement, were all people chip in. > Not just you and me. Yeah, you and me alone couldn't do much. That wasn't my point. It only takes one person to affect *tremendous* change, as proven time and time again. A one penny tax "makes" like, some far out amount of money. If you could pitch in a penny, and end world hunger (contrived example) vs. contributing hundreds of dollars and only "ending" hunger for a few families... > "Some people argue that we could wipe out starvation and whatnot, if we > wanted to." > > Yes we probably could. Alas, it won't happen. Governments and warlords get > in the way. We don't give a damn. Don't sugar coat it. The government isn't some entity that we have no control over. It's fun to blame stuff, and people, but hopefully you hold the Truth close to your heart. The "problem" is "us". =) > "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.." > > Nope. I didn't rage against them. I bet you don't recall me supporting > them either. I don't say much about military spending. It's easy for it to > be the whipping boy for liberals, but it's not the only area where spending > is out of control. Control the spending across the board. Yup, I agree. Focusing on the defense budget was a bit of fishing, and a bit of common sense. Where is *most* of our money spent? > "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?" > > Lord no, it's not the only reason. But it does seem to be front and > foremost in the politics. Redistribution of wealth seems to be a recurring > point these days. "Redistributing" wealth is a big part of government's job. Pitch a penny == build a road, neh? > And it's hard to draw the line between big business and big government these > days. Amen! > "You sound like a real conservative." > I like to think of myself as a conservative libertarian. I like it. =) > "But you're kidding yourself if you think even 10% of the other > 'conservatives' share your beliefs." > > Let me change one word in your sentence and I'll say I agree with it 100%. > Change "conservatives" to "Republicans". I know, I know, but somehow Republicans have usurped the title of "conservative". It's a travesty. > "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!'." > > Same with social security, medicare, welfare, and so on. Tu-shay. =) > Everybody is for lower taxes unless it effects them directly. Nobody is for > higher taxes unless they benefit directly. No I. I pay all kinds of taxes for crap I'll never use, nor benefit from directly (or even indirectly for a grip of stuff, probably, but it is a tangled web). I was fully expecting to pay more taxes when we started spending more than we were pulling in (again). There's this whole group of folk who think it's fine to increase spending without increasing taxes (or reducing spending, of course, but I like a lot of the things we were already spending money on-- why should it suffer just so a select few could go on a "crusade" (what a poor choice of words, neh?)). I'd pay a few pennies more to get universal health care-- hell, a few bucks, even. At least we can, if we so choose, legitimately, force some kind of transparency. I don't think we really care that much tho. We're decent people generally, but not quite "awake" in general, if you ask me. =Den -- Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose b ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:323951 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
