The Poor Should Pay Higher Taxes

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

My statement about left wing intolerance is a fact, and not in and of itself intolerant. For it to be intolerant, I would have to choose to hate them for it. Frankly I don't give a sh*t what they think as they do not impact the way I choose to live. I only dislike them when they are further tightening the noose of government around my neck. As for the homeless, let them be homeless if they choose. I support helping them in a way. If they choose help, it will be by strict rules and require them to submit their time and labor to be sold to corporations for the profit of the government. If they wish, they can opt out at any time, find another way to support themselves and stop receiving assistance. No one has to be living on the street, and no one gets a free ride. As for my prison idea, it does come with a few more caveats. First off, we need to reduce the number of petty, bullshit laws and keep prisons for people who commit property crimes or bring physical harm to another person.Murder, theft, rape, etc. all deserve time in prison. After all, your person and your property are the most important things you possess outside of your liberty. Stop throwing pot heads in jail, for example. If someone steals my car, I want them to do 5 years hard labor for it. I don't want them let out because minimum sentencing says the small time drug dealer who grows a little weed needs to stay in there instead. I want to make them HATE prison, which is why I thought of this. It may be a little overreaching, but I do feel that prison populations are an untapped resource that can be made to help defray the cost of incarceration. No one, not even in prison, should get a free ride at the expense of the tax payers.

 

[slone56]

slone....i like your thinking, but do you know how much 40 million times 1 million is?

LOL, 40,000,000,000,000.(only 40 trillion)

Makes no difference though, right. While Obama is in office, these numbers are a drop in the bucket.

I don't know what makes me more mad, that he is in office , or the majority of my red blooded Americans wanted him.

What differance does it make WHO spends the money? Someone will LOL!!!!!!

 

[CaStylin]

My statement about left wing intolerance is a fact, and not in and of itself intolerant. For it to be intolerant, I would have to choose to hate them for it. Frankly I don't give a sh*t what they think as they do not impact the way I choose to live. I only dislike them when they are further tightening the noose of government around my neck.

Intolerance does not have to be to the level of hate, any negative feelings or actions expressed towards a group which intrudes on the public legitimacy and attempts to destroy the solvernty of the group would be considered intolerance. If hate where the only thing that could be considered in being intolerant then all but a few groups would not fit. For example, most catholic churches are intolerant of the homosexuals of society and refuse to allow them to join even if they share the same core beliefs... I would hate to think that they employ active hate towards this group but it is clear to see that they are not tolerant of this life style

Also personal opinion does not equal fact; fact is something that has supported background... in this situation giving some statistical data would clearly show support for this or pretty much any given topic. There have been many studies on toleration... from the KKK, to the church, to the south as a whole to the, past and present conservative parties, and also green movement parties. Of course there is a level of intolerance in each of these groups (as human individuals be have an ingrained feeling of egocentrism) but the levels in some are much higher then others

As for the homeless, let them be homeless if they choose. I support helping them in a way. If they choose help, it will be by strict rules and require them to submit their time and labor to be sold to corporations for the profit of the government. If they wish, they can opt out at any time, find another way to support themselves and stop receiving assistance.

Most of the help for the homeless does not come from government assistance but instead community outreach programs... Again outside of base level manufacturing there is little that can be contracted to corporations with out the application of training in particular skills. With your program you are essentially calling government assistance for a skill training program for those who are currently skill less at no cost… if you are allowed to opt out at any time then after a skill is learned then most will leave to support them selves (which is a good thing for the individual but not cost efficient for the government). In the end you are calling for more government spending being that with the rate of turn around the program could not support its self… to review your other post and the thread opening I would think that you would be against more government spending and free aid for those who pay less in taxes

 

[KrisW]

Let me be the first to actually get ON the intolerance bandwagon!

I do not have to be tolerant of ANYTHING OR ANYONE, thank God!

I do not have to tolerate homosexual behavior if I do not agree with it. I don't so I don't. Call me a bigot or whatever, it just shows YOUR intolerance towards me when you use personal attacks and not facts against me. Whatever.

I do not have to be tolerant of democrat (read: communist) "better ideals" just because they have good intentions (or maybe bad intentions) or anything else. I do not have to tolerate rape, do I? Where does the official tolerance line draw out? I AM being raped by the government financially every pay period. I am laid down and my money is taken by force from me. That money is NOT used to help me or my family in any way that is better than what I can do myself. Tolerance is just another bull crap political correctness kick for communist fascist democrats to lord over conservatives. Its just crap, plain and simple.

The truth is that social programs that are religious or club based do much more for the homeless and needy than the government programs do. It is the democrat hatred of religion and religious people's activism that spurns these stupid government programs into action.

If democrats really care about the "common man" and his problems, then why do they always make a plan to use MY money to fix it? Why not just take up a collection from their fellow democrats and fix the problems themselves? That is what conservatives do. That is how the Salvation Army does it. That is how most local churches do it. The real truth is that democrats don't care about anything or anyone except #1! That is why all of their plans involve extorting money from the masses.

 

[srercrcr]

Just a rhetorical question, no need to reply.

Have you noticed that those with nothing are the least tolerant of those with nothing? Which is really strange because those with nothing pay no income tax. It doesn't cost them a thing to have govt programs supporting the poor. It's some kind of competition thing. I believe most people who are financially comfortable don't mind sharing, whether it be by the earned income tax credit or whatever.

 

[KrisW]

More than that, Steve, I think MOST people who have something and any kind of values toward religion or society at all ACTUALLY WANT AND LIKE to help other people.

I can't speak for other religions, but Christians are often taught to help the "poor." I'm sure other religions do, too. It's not out of guilt, but out of a sense of right and wrong (conscience) that we do it. Some is the brotherhood of man, and on and on.

I think for the most part people do help each other if they have values. Unfortunately, I believe the poor, especially the minority poor, are not only NOT taught any social values but the government keeps them down on purpose. It seems evil and twisted to me that our government keeps them uneducated and poor by denying them the hard lessons that most of us learn in life which affirm our values.

I liken these actions very much to the drug pusher who keeps his junkies addicted so that they depend on him. He feeds them a little and then feeds off of their misery. This is just evil and it has to stop.

I like the old saying, "give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for life," as a model in simplistic terms of what needs to be done. This places the responsibility on both society and the poor man. The society is responsible for helping those who are beaten down by whatever happened. The man is responsible for his own upkeep once he is taught how to do it.

We give away lots of fish in this country, and none of those with full bellies are required to learn the art of fishing themselves.

It's time for a real change; not some bull crap slogan, and not a change from bad to worse (which is what Obama and his boys are doing.)

 

[srercrcr]

The less fortunate are taught to fish via public schools (vs only schooling for those who can afford it). I think that works pretty good. I know personally of two individuals who were very bright but due to an excellent public school education they were able to attend college on scholarships and work/study, as well as graduate from a military academy. Both are solid contributors today.

 

[KrisW]

I would argue that public school had minimal effect on their outcomes. The fact that they were able to be involved enough in school to make something out of themselves usually comes from values passed on from their Parents (or whoever it is that raised them.)

It is not the public school's job to teach our children. It is OUR job to do that. Public school is where the values that we have instilled in our children are put to the test. It is where their minds can be expanded inside math and science, and literature as well, but it is not where they are shaped as people.

Many of our founders in this country were self-taught. I'm sure they learned their values from their elders.

I also had a public school education. It did not make me who I am today. It takes a certain willingness and amount of personal initiative to do well enough in school to get a scholarship and then work your way through college. Military training is even tougher at an academy.

Also, the odds are in favor that the two you use as an example will be more likely to live by conservative principles (like me) as opposed to socialist principles that support those who choose not to work hard and make their ways toward success.

There is something about fighting for your life that makes you cherish it more. The same goes for your family and your possessions. When you get something for free you tend not to care if you give it away or not. When you earn it through due diligence and hard work, you don't want it taken away and given to someone who will receive it for free and most likely not care about it.

 

[CaStylin]

Just to throw some things out there

The public school education is not equal by any means... it has been recorded that on average suburban public schools rake in as much as 50% more funds per child then do urban public schools. Public schools in urban environments teach you little more then what’s required and barely aloe to any skill that are required in the job world today. For example the suburban schools have computers and require a computer class before graduation. In this class they are taught the Microsoft packages (Excel, word, PowerPoint) all which are useful in higher education as well as in the corporate world. On the other hand the urban school does not have computers... these skills are not taught and can not be applied in higher education and corporate work. It is easier and quicker to step up in like when you have something to start from then to crawl out of the slums when you have nothing

As for the homeless... there are very few that have full belly’s off of the peoples tax dollars... I ask you this, to each individual how much is given directly or indirectly from the government per year (last time i check it was far less then 500.00)... And now think if you survive just 2 month off that... none the less be able to present your self for any kind of labor. Right now there is close to 100,000 homeless on the streets of greater LA from all different religious backgrounds but normal the same starting SES (social economic status). For those not in the same starting SES we find many with mental conditions which don’t normative social movement… a majority of those with mental conditions many are also former troops of our military… The homeless they eat trash, sleep on side walks, in dumpers, under brides… Many die from hunger; disease and some of the virus and bacteria that most of us can afford to fend off or never are exposed to.

There are few the of the group choose to be homeless, it is more common to find someone that has gone from being the working poor to being homeless do the simple illness or distress (like a broken bone or similar) which called for them to be jobless for a period of time leading to financial disaster.

I do agree if you get things for free you stop tiring to work for them (this is true for both the poor and the rich) but if you refused to help those in need or those who start in a situation of need (i.e. those in public schools in large urban areas) then there will be no end and we will continue to live in this cycle of improvished for thousands

 

[KrisW]

I think you have been reading way too much democrat communist propaganda. We're talking facts here, not communist feelings about the way things ought to be.

I would like you to actually go and talk to these poor homeless people in LA who have no other alternative whatsoever than to live under a bridge. It is absolute bull crap. I used to live north of LA and the homeless lady who slept every afternoon on my front lawn in Oxnard did so because she wanted to. I asked her!

The homeless people in my town in Florida are the same. They sleep in the city park because they want to. The Salvation Army here doesn't turn anyone away, but they do require you to attend services before you get your free stuff. So, you know what? They go to the other handouts at the baptist mission because there are no requirements! Yes, I have talked to these people too. I had one two summers ago accost me right after Church services and in front of my wife and baby. He said because I was a Christian that I was obligated to give him some money because he didn't have any. I offered to put his bicycle in my car's trunk and drive him to the Salvation Army where he could eat, have a place to sleep, and get job training - FOR FREE - but of course he cursed me out and rode away. You can save your democrat bull crap for people who don't know better. I do.

There may be many mentally ill people out there, but maybe they like living off the grid and out of society's imposed norms. It's not for me to judge them, only to offer help. If they don't take it then there is nothing for me to do about it. I certainly won't go from one homeless person to the next and judge their mental stability. I already pay taxes to the stupid government to do that!

Education, hmmm.... let's see...

You think that money is the answer to this problem? Wrong again, my California friend. The government has been throwing money away toward this forever and nothing has improved over the last 50 years, has it? Perhaps a new approach is needed? Some change that we can believe in?

Where do you think this school money comes from? It comes from people who pay taxes. Do you think that the people with more money pay more or less in taxes? Do you think that their school districts will get more money if more people WITH money who pay MORE taxes live in those districts? This is simple math and it is easy to see where the answers lie.

Using a blatently communist approach to redistribute wealth and give the inner cities more will not fix the core problem. The problem is not money. The problem is personal responsibility. The problem is values. The inner city doesn't have any. They don't have any because their parents don't have any. It is an unbroken cycle that has been around since there have been inner cities.

The solution? At some point, a poor inner city kid needs to be moved to a family member (or adopted family) somewhere else where they go to Church and have some type of moral values. You find a way to do that and you will solve the poor and homeless problems by about 90%.