This is Good! So true...

Let's start with this: Why do we have taxes?

Answer: To fund the LEGITIMATE functions of Gov't.

What are the LEGITIMATE functions of Gov't?

Answer: Provide for the Common Defense, promote the general welfare (note: BIG difference between the words PROVIDE & PROMOTE), preserve public order, control the Criminal Element, Define what is money, act as umpire in settling public and private disputes.

What about public Schools, Social Security, Healthcare, Housing and Food Stamps?

Answer: Gov't should NOT be involved in any of these things, these are the responsibilities of INDIVIDUALS. If you can't afford to have children - DON'T HAVE THEM! Your retirement is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! So is your healthcare! The best way to guarantee homelessness is to get the Gov't involved in housing! If you can't afford food - STOP BUYING DRUGS & BOOZE!

Any other questions?


Source

More Stuff

[edit on 1-9-2004 by TrueLies]

I wonder - if the government was to buy our drugs and booze, then we would have enough for food, retirement, school, ect. Then we could have less tax. Sounds logical, no?

I agree with the point that a person should be responsible for the number of kids they have and for their own retirement. Social Security was started during a time when it was desperately needed by a class of people who had fallen through the cracks. To some degree its usefulness has run its course, however, chopping it off at the knees suddenly would be the wrong thing to do.

It would need to be phased out slowly so that young people could make plans for doing without it.

The only thing I disagree with is health insurance. Government and politicians are knee deep in their involvement with pharmaceutical companies and their profits. If they are going to aid them in keeping prices high and ensuring that their profits continue to rise then they need to realize that a majority of people won't be able to afford most treatments. That includes a lot of poor Conservatives who share your views.

What's the point of having modern medicine if only the rich can get access to it? And your fooling yourself if you think their are enough opportunities in this country for everyone to become wealthy. Thats a myth perpetuated by the ones who are whether they actually worked for it or not.

If medical coverage gets banished then medical companies should no longer benefit from lobbyists or political intervention for their profits sake.

So Basically what your saying is you support the rich getting richer and poor staying poor?

If healthcare and education are privatised, the poor wont be able to send their kids to school coz they wont be able ot avoid it, thus their kids wontget an education and then their kids will in turn be poor (kind feudalistic dont you think) so then this family line will be stuck in this class with no chance of making money so they can be part of the privilidged elite. If Healthcare is privatised the poor cant afford medicine, thus when they get sick they wont get better as quick and thus cant work and thus lose more money and becomee more poor and then cant send their kids to school which menas their kids will be poor and get sick and not be able to go to work and so on and so foth yada yada yada...

What your promoting truelies is basically a feudalistic system which blocks people from having the basic of life if they cant afford them, thus dis-allowing them the opportunity to improve their lives or those of their dependents...So what i'm saying is...

This isnt good and its not true... it just a theory to help the rich and privilidged stay that way and lets them keep their kids from actually having to work hard ever in their lifetimes. While it ensures that the poor and disavantaged stay that way and their kids have to work hard for nothing their whole lives... do you honestly think thats fair?

Originally posted by TrueLies
Let's start with this: Why do we have taxes?

.... If you can't afford to have children - DON'T HAVE THEM! Your retirement is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! So is your healthcare! The best way to guarantee homelessness is to get the Gov't involved in housing! If you can't afford food - STOP BUYING DRUGS & BOOZE!

Source

More Stuff

[edit on 1-9-2004 by TrueLies]

I agree very much on the welfare aspects. I hate it when our tax money is spent on people who have no drive to stop being lazy and stop have a dozen kids whom they cant support and I have to pay for.

What about public Schools, Social Security, Healthcare, Housing and Food Stamps?

Answer: Gov't should NOT be involved in any of these things, these are the responsibilities of INDIVIDUALS. If you can't afford to have children - DON'T HAVE THEM! Your retirement is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! So is your healthcare! The best way to guarantee homelessness is to get the Gov't involved in housing! If you can't afford food - STOP BUYING DRUGS & BOOZE!

that's the biggest load of arrogant self centered # i've ever heard. It's obviously coming from rich greedy capitalists who are so concerned with themselves that they don't believe their money should go to helping others apart from themselves.

The role of a govt is to provide these BASIC human rights. I would never live in such a #house country like the United States who can't even provide decent basic universal necessities to the people. 44 million people without healthcare? that's awful, its a joke. I can't believe that a lot of people in the US actually agree with this crap how can you call yourselves human beings.

extremely disappointed,
drfunk

Here here doctor!!!

The US is nothing but a capitalist-fuedalistic dump design to keep the 'upper class' rich folk right there, and to make sure the kids who had rich parents and never had to work a day in their lives stay rich too...

# it... any country with Idealsl ike that is not morally superior in any way and really should just be nuked right now before they do any more damage... reading this post just makes me soooo angry!!!!!!!:bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bash::bash::bash::swear :


edit- apparantly the the language was originally too colourful... had to tone it down

[edit on 2-9-2004 by specialasianX]

Originally posted by TrueLies
Let's start with this: Why do we have taxes?

Answer: To fund the LEGITIMATE functions of Gov't.

What are the LEGITIMATE functions of Gov't?

Answer: Provide for the Common Defense, promote the general welfare (note: BIG difference between the words PROVIDE & PROMOTE), preserve public order, control the Criminal Element, Define what is money, act as umpire in settling public and private disputes.

What about public Schools, Social Security, Healthcare, Housing and Food Stamps?

Answer: Gov't should NOT be involved in any of these things, these are the responsibilities of INDIVIDUALS. If you can't afford to have children - DON'T HAVE THEM! Your retirement is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! So is your healthcare! The best way to guarantee homelessness is to get the Gov't involved in housing! If you can't afford food - STOP BUYING DRUGS & BOOZE!

Any other questions?


Source

More Stuff

[edit on 1-9-2004 by TrueLies]

Thank you Truelies for providing a classic example of what is wrong with the US and the typical attitude of the Republican/Right.

Just aswell you don't have taxes for being Self-centred, blinkered with a large coating of pure ignorance, you wouldn't be to well off then...!!

Corporate welfare takes more of your money than any programs to help the poor ever could. As for welfare most states now have laws with a limit of two years total, that means you can not access that program more than two years total your entire life. As for our tax dollars what exactly are we getting for it? Canada has health care for everyone and also no one in Canada has to pay for their college education if they want to go to college they can go, they don't even have to pay for books. So here in America we pay 52% of our wages in taxes by the time you add in all the gas, real estate and state taxes and then whats taken out of our checks every week it adds up to a whopping lot and we get to pay for our health care and college out of the other 48% and then we get a C average student for our President, Yeah I'm personally really glad he is from Texas being as I don't live there.

You know I completly agree with true lies. Call me a neo-con poverty hating minortiy bashing capatalist pig if you like, but the truth is the poverty in the United States is because of welfare not in spite of it. When you create a system that allows people to rely on the government for support rather than themselves, you ensure that a measurable part of the population will take that option. The fact is many people are lazy, many people of all colors would rather that somone else support them. Those who would rather support themselves will allways do so while those who would rather not will not. The main problem with welfare is its affect on the vast majority of people who are in between the two catagories. Most people are neither truly lazy nor truly self motivated. However they are motivated by necessity. Take away the need for them to support themselves and they won't. In America today we have an entire generation of children who have never seen either parent work, and who believe that it is the government job to provide for the people. The point of the government is to ensure the abillity of the people to provide for themselves. Welfare creates poverty.
Also keep in mind that due to the nature of beuracracy it is impossible for a government to do anything efficiently. Should healthcare become government funded it will become even more inefficient and though in theroy everyone will have coverage noone will actually get treatment.
Finally in terms of the price of health care as I posted in another forum the average cost of devolping a new drug is 808 million dollars, when you consider that 70% of all new drugs never reach break even (meaning they never bring in enough revenues to recoup the cost of devolpment) that means that the cost of producing a new drug which makes enough to recoup R&D costs is well nto the billions. Now If you spent several billon dollars developing a drug which saves lives don't you have the right to at least get back the money you spent devolping that drug? Or is the fact that it is a drug mean that you have to go broke trying to help people? Finally consider that the costs listed are the costs n the private sector where a lack of efficiency translate to a lack of existense, were healthcare controlled by the government waste would increase, meaning costs would increase meaning the tax-payers (as always) would get royally raped.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by mwm1331]

I know lots of poor people and I do not know anyone on welfare, everyone I know works and do not feel they need welfare. But they do understand that for someone in a dire situation it should be there for a small percentage of time, not forever. There are no long term welfare programs now those are a thing of the past. As for a health care programs for everyone most republicans are against it they would rather people die from lack of health care if they thought they might have to pay one dime more in taxes but they don't mind paying that one dime for corporate welfare, nor do they bother thinking that they might one day find themselves in need of free health care; life spins on a dime and those with money and a good insurance policy may not have it tomorrow.

that is the typical right-wing conservative argument for not helping people and it stinks. Trust me the majority on welfare are not bum's they are people who need help living while they are out of work and are trying to get a job. These things do cost an absolute fortune but it is a necessity. It has worked in every other country in the developed world for 50 years and with continuing reforms and commitment in these nations it will continue to work way into the future.

I understand how much money drugs cost but the state must provide heavily subsidised healthcare and medication so that everyone can afford it, rich and poor. My mother has to take medication that is worth around $1000 a packet and she needs a packet every month and all she pays is $3 a packet because the state pays for most of it. My mother needs this medication or she will not be able to live a normal life. There are millions of people across the developed world who are in a similar situation and they can afford to life normal and prosperous lives thanks to state programs such as this.

If you work, you pay taxes and they go into paying for the Universal Healthcare and Education. It's not as if it's a free ride everyone is paying for it and while the system isn't perfect it's much superior to the situation in the US. You talk about how much a drug costs to develop. I say to you money is no object when it comes to these drugs as long as they save lives and i'm sure most people in the developed world agree with me on this.

It is atrocious to even think about not providing such things because you are taking away universal human rights and making the world a darker place.

thanks,
drfunk

Goose that is what unemployment insurance is for, to provide for people in times of dire need.
Koka do you think money grows on trees? Where do you thnk the pharmacuetical companies get the money to develop the drugs your mother is on?

In reference to social security, let me ask you this. If a man works his entire life, and chooses not to save and invest his money to provide for himself in his old age why should I? If his retirement was so important why didn't he do something about it? nd don't give me the "some people can't afford to save" line because its crap.
Do you know how much it would cost a private citizen to fully fund his own retirement? As little as 5-10 dollars per week. Thats 3 packs of ciggarettes, or 1 six pack of beer, or 2 meals at mc donalds. Thats it. The reason most people today don't have money for retirement is beacuse they don't plan ahead. Its thier own fault.

The problem with socialism is it takes the responsibillity for you and your future out of your hands and places it in the hands of the government. Not only is it a responsibillity that the government CAN NOT fufill but in the process of attempting to they take away your right to be the master of your own destiny and does it under the guise of being for your own good.

dude it's my mother and please don't refer to it as drugs, it makes it sounds as if she is a crackhead or something . The money for her drugs come from her taxes and everyone elses taxes in Australia. Money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from working. And when you work you pay taxes and those taxes are used in turn to pay for her medication and everyone who needs medication.

And yes you do make a good point about the $5-$10 a week but still it isn't enough to live the rest of your life on. That would only last about a year or two. The old need help because they haven't got enough superannuation saved up to survive for the rest of their life or the superannuation companies have lost all their money. And need I remind you that they are not a liability most of the eldery are honest hard working people who have contributed to society and paid a lot of money in taxes over the years and it's the govt's duty to at least help the eldery who have contributed so much.


thanks,
drfunk

Originally posted by mwm1331
Koka do you think money grows on trees? Where do you thnk the pharmacuetical companies get the money to develop the drugs your mother is on?

I don't recall mentioning my mother?

Actually, money grows when you have money.

Do you really believe that a person working in the service sector can afford the same treatment as the likes of a lawyer? And remember, this person isn't on welfare, they just want equality and a fair chance.

Thinking more about it, money almost grows on trees, we just don't respect it. Brazil has the largest rainforests in the world a commodity I place well above the likes of oil or most anything actually.

The world will come to realise this and will respectfully pay countries like Brazil, to keep those forests in abundance, failure to do so will cost us all dearly.

Originally posted by mwm1331
You know I completly agree with true lies. Call me a neo-con poverty hating minortiy bashing capatalist pig if you like, but the truth is the poverty in the United States is because of welfare not in spite of it. When you create a system that allows people to rely on the government for support rather than themselves, you ensure that a measurable part of the population will take that option. The fact is many people are lazy, many people of all colors would rather that somone else support them. Those who would rather support themselves will allways do so while those who would rather not will not. The main problem with welfare is its affect on the vast majority of people who are in between the two catagories. Most people are neither truly lazy nor truly self motivated. However they are motivated by necessity. Take away the need for them to support themselves and they won't. In America today we have an entire generation of children who have never seen either parent work, and who believe that it is the government job to provide for the people. The point of the government is to ensure the abillity of the people to provide for themselves. Welfare creates poverty.
Also keep in mind that due to the nature of beuracracy it is impossible for a government to do anything efficiently. Should healthcare become government funded it will become even more inefficient and though in theroy everyone will have coverage noone will actually get treatment.
Finally in terms of the price of health care as I posted in another forum the average cost of devolping a new drug is 808 million dollars, when you consider that 70% of all new drugs never reach break even (meaning they never bring in enough revenues to recoup the cost of devolpment) that means that the cost of producing a new drug which makes enough to recoup R&D costs is well nto the billions. Now If you spent several billon dollars developing a drug which saves lives don't you have the right to at least get back the money you spent devolping that drug? Or is the fact that it is a drug mean that you have to go broke trying to help people? Finally consider that the costs listed are the costs n the private sector where a lack of efficiency translate to a lack of existense, were healthcare controlled by the government waste would increase, meaning costs would increase meaning the tax-payers (as always) would get royally raped.

Helathcare for everyone is not welfare.
A free college education is not welfare.
It would be paid for by everyone working and paying taxes, not just you.

Drfunk - this is my field so trst me when I say that putting side 5-10 dollars a week, strting when you re young by the time you re 55-65 you will have enough to not only live the rest of your life but to leave a sizable nestegg to your chldren. I cannot count how many people mking less than 20k per year I have helped set up private pensions for who, if they keep contributing, will retire millionaires. It doesnt take as much as people think it does. The problem is that government funded pensions will never be able to do the same. First of all the beuracratic structure means that anywhere from 10-30% of the money is wasted. Second the government can not take advantage of the same vehicles a private person can.
With an extreemly conservative investment strategy and 5-10 dollars a week starting as late as 30, anyone can retire a millionaire. even if yo start at 35 40 it would only take 20-30 dollars a week which is one dinner at a medium to low grade resturant.
Koka what I meant about your mothers medication is where do you think the money to develop that drug came from? Who paid for the R&D? I guarantee it was not the government.
The point I am making is that in the long run, you stand to gain far more by not being taxed and acting responsibly with your money than being taxed and relying on the government.
There is NO excuse for someone to not be able to provide for thier own future.

Goose a free college education for everyone IS welfare. The fact is College should be expensive, you should have to work to get in and you should have to work to stay in. Further more the number of private educational grants, and scholarships in the U.S. far outweighs the government funded ones.

Look at it this way what if instead of the government taking your money for these programs they let you keep it and gave you a 1 for 1 tax deuction on every dollar you give to charities such as Habitat for Humanity, The United Negro College Fund, or other non-profit charities that do the same thing as government funded welfare programs at half the cost?
What would happen? Simple you would keep more of your money, those who needed help would get it at a lower administrative cost, meaning that both you and they wold live better. The fact that you would keep more of your money means it would be easier for you to put aside money for healthcare and retirement whle still enjoying a better standard of lving than you do now, with more disposable income which in turn would enrich the economy, creating more jobs, thus lowering the unemployment rate even further, which would mean that the economy has more money in it, thus creatng more jobs etc.

What you all fail to understand is that the government is like a black hole, 40-50% of all the money collected in taxes never goes anywhere. It dissapears due to waste, ineffiency, and corruption which is inseperable from the governemnt.

Every dollar that you get to keep creates 3-4 more dollars every dollar the government collects loses 35-50 cents forever.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Goose a free college education for everyone IS welfare. The fact is College should be expensive, you should have to work to get in and you should have to work to stay in. Further more the number of private educational grants, and scholarships in the U.S. far outweighs the government funded ones.


Why should we have to work, scrimp and save for a college education? Is the degree more valuable or does it have an extra something on it because a poor person worked a full time job and worked harder than they should have for it, No I will tell you what it has. It has a student loan attached to it most often so that not only did the person work the whole time they went to school but now part of their future earnings is owed. Canada can do this for their children why can't America do it? I do not consider it welfare, I do not consider it right that our government squanders our tax dollars either, I do not consider it right that anyone in America is without adequate healthcare. You can make all the points you want to about why it will not work or why we should not have it, I think it should and can be done. Tell me have you ever been poor? Have you ever not had medical insurance or the money to get your children what they needed medically?