Why Do Democrats Love Taxes?

reply to post by links234


I think if governments were run by angles and perhaps Santa Clause, it might be ok for us all to (voluntarily) put a chunk of our money into a big pot and expect it to be spent wisely and benevolently. Unfortunately, as history and common sense teaches us, any centralized monopoly of violence (=government) ,no matter how well intentioned its beginnings, will inevitably be overrun with the small fraction of people who would use violence to achive their ends, which is why corruption and tyranny is inevitable in any government.

Which is why said government should never be trusted with a large chunk of our paycheques~ It will inevitably be misspent by violent people on their cronies as beruacracies expand and the original program the money was supposed to fund is choaked off by said beruacracies red tape and inherent mismanagement in any monopoly system.

So not only is socialism unsustainable and unworkable in the long run due to the problems of human nature, it relies on violence to extract the funds it needs, both in the present in the form of taxes and in the future in the form of debt. (debt to central banks, who love socialism because it creates and indebted class of domesticated humans) Sure, the socialist utopias of Europe sure looked good on the way up, masking the violence inherent in the system, but now that the bills cannot be pushed further into the future, and its time to pay the piper, their system is unraveling and showing its true, temporary nature. And now those Greeks who paid the majority of their paycheques to the government, expecting to be taken care of cradle to grave are being told 'no pension for you!'

In short, you cannot *force* people to act altruistically,( and government pretending to do so actually inhibits those who would on their own accord from doing so, cuz they think the government has it covered.) You cannot spend your way out of debt. You cannot borrow from the future without sabotaging it. And you cannot violenty extract money from people at gunpoint and not expect a violent society in return. I do not trust government with my money because I know a bit of history, and I respectfully submit that neither should you.



[edit on 4-7-2010 by Neo_Serf]

reply to post by whaaa


I would stay off your roads if they were privatized.

Of course, you don't give me a choice.

You demand the government hold a gun to my head and extract the money necessary to maintain them.

Since you don't want to pay for the roads yourself, you advocate violence as a means to make me pay for the roads you drive on instead of paying for what you use yourself.

I guess some of us support violence then.

reply to post by Someone336


more like a lot of you support violence against the innocent.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Democrats like taxes because of a simple rule.

" Vote for me and I will give you more of other people's stuff " .

I you don't have much stuff it sounds like a good idea.

All the democrats proposals for doing things better can be reduced to this simple rule. I has worked for them since Andy Jackson, do not expect them to change what works.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Lets see what my share of the bailouts should come to.

Figure 23,700 billion in banker bailout loot, divided by roughly 200 million tax paying citizens, I should get about 118 thousand in cash back to me.

I figure a check for 118 thousand is about what I'm entitled to.



[edit on 4-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

I would dig that, except for the fact that is socialism.

I thought that would have been the best way to achieve stimulus, people get to pay their debts off and the big boys get it after it goes to serve good to the citizenry first.

Would you have advocated for that, as opposed to what was done?

reply to post by Janky Red


Over what we did?

Of course.

If I had to pick between the two, I'd want it myself.

The bailouts were enough to eliminate all private debt in America - student loans, mortgages, credit card debt, etc.. etc.. - everything could have been paid off with the amount we spent on bailouts and "stimulus"

Of course, the only reason we are in this mess in the first place is because of the federal reserve and our criminal government.

The markets enact punishment, the government prevents that punishment.

The government works for the banks and corporate interests.

Oh and I don't like taxes per say-

But it does give me a mighty place to roam

What I don't like is people being used and abused in the name of business, that is essentially the crux of my liberalness.

I realize the opposite of your government violence is corporate sadism, which blesses all sorts of vile passive varieties of basic suffering based upon too bad.

Like myself, who can typically only afford to use medicine for fish when I am sick, despite the fact that I work like everyone else. It depends on my bank account...

I would receive medical care beyond First aid or stabilization, if I murdered 10 people
or was an insurgent in Iraq who was fortunate enough to be downed by none murderous troops.

Of course I am free to be a carp and thrash violently on my own




[edit on 4-7-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red


No, the opposite of my anger against violence is not corporate sadism.

Corporations have no power on their own.

I can see you have softened your views of the market somewhat, I know you are coming around. Any rational person eventually will.

Corporations only aquire power to do harm through the government.

Government is the evil here.

Corporations must entice and perform in order for them to survive in a free market. If they suck, they fail. They go bankrupt. The market punishes those corporations that do not meet what the public wants.

The free market is the greatest democracy on the planet today. People vote with their dollars every time they make a purchase. You have a vote in the free market.

Where you don't have a vote is when politicians decide to bailout the banks, hand out government contracts, and do all manner of mischief with your tax dollars.

With politicians, you get a vote once every four years.

With the market, you get a vote every day of your life.

As an EX-Republican, I will summarize the reason for MOST of the complaining going on about the current administration.

It is 9 out of 10 the WEALTHY who are the ANGRY ones complaining. They fear that the Democrats will now cause them to pay their FAIR SHARE in taxes as opposed to getting off while the "little guy" gets RAPED. George Bush let them enjoy all kinds a SELFISH UNCALLED FOR "PERKS".

The unfairness will come to an END for them, and they are AFRAID as they are 100% SELF-CENTERED GREEDY to the CORE, UNCOMPASSIONATE individuals to say it the nicest possible way.

They will come on here and use SCARE TACTICS supported by UNFOUNDED pure FICTIONAL NONSENSE to support their claims. They VERY RARELY ever have any actual true substance in their claims.

And when there is a SLIGHT truth, it is said WITHOUT the WHOLE story or details, and is CUSTOM TAILORED to fit their BIASED opinion or claims.

THERE IS ALWAYS MORE to the story or info that they discuss in which they PURPOSELY OMIT!!!!!

I was a REPUBLICAN, for a LONG time. I will give you the real scoop on it all.

Just research everything that is claimed from them, and you will see they LACK ANY CREDIBLE SUBSTANCE IN THEIR COUNTER-ATTACKS.

They are ANGRY that they will have to PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE INSTEAD OF THE LITTLE GUY BEING UNFAIRLY BURDENED TO DEATH.

~~~An EX-Republican

reply to post by ExRepublican


Oh please, its not the wealthy who are complaining.

Lawyers are the top donors to the democratic party, as are the ultra wealthy.

Both the ultra wealthy and lawyers wouldn't exist without the democrats enacting all manner of regulation and corporate welfare.

Republican's aren't any better, they are just owned by different special interest groups.

The wealthy all have the means to avoid paying taxes anyways.

Steve Jobs annual salary from Apple is $1.00 a year.

He makes all his money through capital gains.

Even if the democrats raised capital gains (which I doubt they would do,) the ultra wealthy would get it all back in government contracts or moving their holdings off-shore.

Taxes are not the solution.

Violence is not the solution.

Government is not the solution.




[edit on 4-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

No, the opposite of my anger against violence is not corporate sadism.

Corporations have no power on their own.

I can see you have softened your views of the market somewhat, I know you are coming around. Any rational person eventually will.

Corporations only acquire power to do harm through the government.

Government is the evil here.

Corporations must entice and perform in order for them to survive in a free market. If they suck, they fail. They go bankrupt. The market punishes those corporations that do not meet what the public wants.

The free market is the greatest democracy on the planet today. People vote with their dollars every time they make a purchase. You have a vote in the free market.

Where you don't have a vote is when politicians decide to bailout the banks, hand out government contracts, and do all manner of mischief with your tax dollars.

With politicians, you get a vote once every four years.

With the market, you get a vote every day of your life.

Well the truth is I have strived to learn what you present-

But I don't believe it works as you reckon, there is always a point were it presents very basic problems that I feel you are unwilling to examine.

I feel the BP serves as a great example... There is no market for this, a foreign corporation to clean up the mess, it is the U.S government and its influence that is the
only thing keeping BP from walking away. Meanwhile neglectful violence has been perpetrated on countless small enterprises. BP has the rest of the world to profit from provided EVERYONE in the U.S boycotted the business, that is hardly the damning punishment you envision.

The conservative prescription of the courts will be used to endlessly fend of suits.
The conservative SCOTUS consistently sides with business even in the presence of
damage, the SCOTUS will limit damages which ignore the toll of the real damages inflicted upon plaintiffs.

OR

In some South American countries private entities by a the water source and us that "property" as leverage to manipulate and control whole populations, usually using that very influence and tyranny to run another business with unsavory dictates...

my own concept

what is to keep me from buying the road in front of your house and simply stating
"if you want to drive/walk on my road you have to buy my electricity and have to place all your money in my bank, or you cannot use the road which abuts your driveway."

Thats the terms of my contract, take it or leave it

What if your neighbors are fine with that and you are the only one who is not?

If there were no rules and I had a Billion bucks, I bet you I could control your local like a puppet... I could align with smaller business's and ensure them certain sectors, control your whole zone. I was in a street gang as a kid, I know exactly how it works, the black market works; to enrich the ones who control the terms... You set rules with the others around you and you can see 6 people controlling 10 square miles, they dictate the rules to the others under them. New competition is brought in to a specified place/term if it surfaces or the six in control deal with the threat of uncooperative competition.

No laws of the government involved - you get controlled in the end, unless you are on top. Its a basic progression and that was pure capitalism, it is nice if you can break into the circle, sucks other wise.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red


Well lets talk about BP.

First we have to understand what a free market entails.

Private property is the foundation of a free market.

The territorial waters of the united states are not private property.

No one owns them because the government doesn't allow them to be sold off in segments like they do with the land.

So BP doesn't actually own the land it drills on, it leases that land from government.

Of course, BP is one of the few mega-corporations with the political clout to actually get a lease, so they get all the loot that comes from that.

But, since no one owns the oceans as private property, they can't sue for damages on their parcel of ocean.

Also, the government created a law that limited BP to only 75 million of clean up costs should a spill occur - well what does this entice BP do to? It caused BP to act recklessly thinking they wouldn't be held responsible for the clean up costs.

Right now, the government is trying to limit BP's property damage claims to a mere 20 billion. So the land owners on the shorelines will not get full payouts from BP because the government is going to limit the damages BP has to pay.

So here again, we have the government preventing the market from working.

BP should be bankrupt right now.

If the market was allowed to work, BP never would have engaged in such risky behavior to start with - and even if they did - they would be held accountable for ALL the clean up costs.

They would be bankrupted by the market.

Our government is preventing BP's bankruptcy right now.


So who is the real criminal here?

BP or the government?


As for roads:


and

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 4-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by ExRepublican

They are ANGRY that they will have to PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE INSTEAD OF THE LITTLE GUY BEING UNFAIRLY BURDENED TO DEATH.

~~~An EX-Republican

I'm tired of charities & bleeding hearts telling me to pay my 'fair share.'
Just what is my 'fair share'?
Percentage wise, what is my 'fair share'?
Does the percentage go up, the more I make/have or does the percentage stay the same at all levels? If it goes up, how much more percent-wise should the rich pay?
What's rich?
Our poor are rich compared to some other countries.
Do you want half my stuff taken away when I die? Or only half of rich peoples stuff when they die? Should it go to the poor or the gooberment?
Who decides? How much should they get paid?
Do we give money to able bodied lazy people or just the infirm?
How much do we give them?
Enough for a flat-screen & cable & pot?
Do we give them enough to barely get by or to make them comfortable & keep them out of the job market?

reply to post by mnemeth1

Why Do Democrats Love Taxes?

Democrats love taxes because it's their modus operandi for redistribution of wealth, and buying political favors from the unions and other special interest groups.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
Maybe...because they pay for things that the public has to use.
I don't know, just a wild guess.

Yea those trillion dollar bailouts, trillion dollar wars, and trillion dollar stimulus packages are sure doing the public good.

reply to post by wutone


Actually save for the GM/Chrysler Bailout the bailouts were done under the last administration. As for the Trillion dollar war, again, last administration started the wars.

So, Corporate Welfare, Endless War is a GOP issue not a DEM issue.

Originally posted by wutone

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
Maybe...because they pay for things that the public has to use.
I don't know, just a wild guess.

Yea those trillion dollar bailouts, trillion dollar wars, and trillion dollar stimulus packages are sure doing the public good.

They don't pay for anything we do, our taxes pay.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79a55e481aae.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 4-7-2010 by guohua]

[edit on 4-7-2010 by guohua]

[edit on 4-7-2010 by guohua]

The truth is, our oh-so-glorious society wouldn't exist without taxes. Unfortunately, the general public is not smart nor compassionate enough to establish and contribute to a pool of funds to be used for the publics good without being forced to do so, so the terrible government that we all hate so much has to force us to do it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate needless spending on bailouts to benefit the elite, un-justified war, violence, etc, but any one who says a productive, benevolent, and advanced society could exist right now without taxes is a fool.

This debate could go on for ages, taxes versus no taxes, but in the end any rational person would realize that the less fortunate who depend on your tax dollars for social assistance, unemployment, healthcare or any other social program are just as important as you and it doesn't hurt to give of yourself. Unless of course, you live your life based upon what only you want, in which case, you would be the exact root of America's problem.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by wutone

 

Actually save for the GM/Chrysler Bailout the bailouts were done under the last administration. As for the Trillion dollar war, again, last administration started the wars.

So, Corporate Welfare, Endless War is a GOP issue not a DEM issue.

LOL

As if they can't stop it.

As if they didn't sign on for it.

As if they didn't shut down the fed audit.

As if as if as if.

Its a government issue.

They are all a bunch of criminals.