The "$2" amount was not the point. However, yes, I do think my personal definition of what I can afford to live on and give away is probably more accurate than a national organization who has attempted to do so by merely basing it off my income. Nobody from the IRS has asked me what debts I'm in, or where/why I got them. Nobody at the IRS asked me how much I am spending on groceries because someone in my home has a disease that requires a particularly specific diet. Nobody at the IRS has asked me about the additional expenses for preparing for a child who isn't here yet. Nobody at the IRS has asked me about the repairs that need done to our vehicle.isadore;1861177 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, "if I have $2 to spare," now there is the basis for a system to support those in need, your personal whim and your personal definition of what you can spare. While you may be personally benign and even charitable it is hardly the basis for providing aid needed for the survival of so many.
When two wolves and one sheep are voting on what's for dinner, then any sort of democracy is oppressive.isadore;1861246 wrote:gosh a ruddies, sorry you think the operation of a representative democracy is a lie. I support people and programs to for a just society and
Spake the one who believes in a Russian election-rigging coverup.isadore;1861583 wrote:gosh a ruddies
This is silly. Libertarianism = voluntaryism. Libertarianism != an inherent belief in everyone fending for themselves.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1861843 wrote:
isadore;1861901 wrote:Depending on individual charity to support the survival of the needy is a recipe for disaster.
isadore;1861901 wrote:Before the New Deal there was no safety net. When the Great Depression hit, it quickly overwhelmed the resources of private charities. One problem with reliance on private charity is that during times of prosperity when people have the most resources there is less obvious need for charity but during times of the greatest need people have the least resources.
isadore;1861901 wrote:It is sad O-Trap that you have see the voters in America as wolves whose only purpose in life but take your money from you.
We should all be forced to such circumstances, at all times, so that people like Isadore would be satisfied!O-Trap;1861918 wrote:In regard to taking money from me, there have indeed been federal, state, and local fiscal decisions made in the political arena that have, in fact, increased my taxes and taking more of my income, even when I really needed that income. But don't worry. It was all for the betterment of society. I was assured of that. I was just going to have to not pay those pesky bills or live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese, so I could pay the higher taxes instead.
LOL - haven't seen that phrase bandied about on a forum for a few years. Reminded me of this:O-Trap;1861918 wrote:
You are aware of Tyranny of the Majority, yes?
I was just a scosh surprised I hadn't seen it all over the web after the election, but prior to the actual vote tally.Zunardo;1862013 wrote:LOL - haven't seen that phrase bandied about on a forum for a few years. Reminded me of this:
Despite your dismissive comments, real disasters happen which individual charities are unable handle. Some are produced by nature like the Irish Potato famine, some by man like the Great Depression. In both cases the suffering was worsened for a time by an overreliance on private charity over government intervention. With the coming of the New Deal the government was unable to create programs like the WPA that kept millions from starvation. They were able to finance with progressive taxation and deficit spending.O-Trap;1861918 wrote:
Ease up on the Chicken Little routine. Save that for the conspiracy theorists you poke with a stick.
The Great Depression overwhelmed private charities because it essentially overwhelmed everyone, whether they had previously had the means to support themselves or not.
During times of the greatest need, you have the least resources available anyway, whether you attempt to take them with threats of violence and imprisonment or not. You can't squeeze blood from an onion.
I assume you're not actually unfamiliar with the analogy I cited. You are aware of Tyranny of the Majority, yes?
In regard to taking money from me, there have indeed been federal, state, and local fiscal decisions made in the political arena that have, in fact, increased my taxes and taking more of my income, even when I really needed that income. But don't worry. It was all for the betterment of society. I was assured of that. I was just going to have to not pay those pesky bills or live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese, so I could pay the higher taxes instead.
Also, the meme is ludicrous. Socialism wouldn't be Jesus feeding the 5,000. Socialism would be Jesus commanding half the 5,000 to empty half their pantries and giving the food to the other half of the 5,000. And if they didn't do it, there was a threat of plagues or eternal damnation in hell.
Jesus feeding people of his own volition is ... <gasp> ... libertarian.
Can you list those, identifiable on paychecks, that are not?isadore;1862209 wrote:I am aware of what majoritarianism is. A Bill of Rights limits the threat of it. It protects those not in the majority. It allows them to try to persuade others that a particular tax or government program is not in their interest. And it protects them from unconstitutional seizure of their property. But every government action that does not go your way, or cost you money is not necessarily an exercise in the Tyranny of the majority. And your tax bill has not force you to “live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese.” Talk about “Chicken Little.” If you cannot accept that, if you see the operation of a democracy as two wolves attacking a sheep there are deserted islands in oceans for you.
Your view of the world
isadore;1862209 wrote:Despite your dismissive comments, real disasters happen which individual charities are unable handle.
isadore;1862209 wrote:Some are produced by nature like the Irish Potato famine, some by man like the Great Depression. In both cases the suffering was worsened for a time by an overreliance on private charity over government intervention.
isadore;1862209 wrote:I am aware of what majoritarianism is. A Bill of Rights limits the threat of it. It protects those not in the majority. It allows them to try to persuade others that a particular tax or government program is not in their interest. And it protects them from unconstitutional seizure of their property.
isadore;1862209 wrote:But every government action that does not go your way, or cost you money is not necessarily an exercise in the Tyranny of the majority.
isadore;1862209 wrote:And your tax bill has not force you to “live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese.” Talk about “Chicken Little.”
isadore;1862209 wrote:If you cannot accept that, if you see the operation of a democracy as two wolves attacking a sheep there are deserted islands in oceans for you.
My view of the world, as it pertains to this topic:isadore;1862209 wrote:Your view of the world
O-Trap;1862242 wrote:It wasn't dismissive. It was merely going to the root of why charities are incapable of handling many disasters ... namely, that the disasters that cause need also prevent the ability of others to donate to said charities.
Essentially, to point to crises in which charities cannot compensate is to point to the very flaw in the system of forcible redistribution. That's not dismissive. It's merely more thorough than you're willing to address the subject.
Per Noam Chomsky, in Requiem for the American Dream, the difference between the Great Depression (where reliance on private charity existed more so than today) and the recessions we see now is that there was an understanding at the time that they would rebound.
Also, your notion that reliance on charity was a cause of the "worsened suffering" is 100% speculative. It has no substance other than already-formed conclusions.
The Bill of Rights does aim to do this, but it was also subjective and not necessarily exhaustive. Appealing to it alone, without appealing to the philosophy behind what it may or may not include, is just kicking the can down the road.
I didn't say it did. I was simply replying to your statement that I believe "the operation of a representative democracy is a lie." It's really not a lie. Lies are untrue, and the operation of a representative democracy exists.
I was merely pointing out that democracy is imperfect, and so there are grounds for objecting to representative democracy.
Actually, that wasn't a sensationalized hypothetical. That was a literal account. Yes. I would have had the means to make most ends meet had it not been for the inane tax burden. I spent about five months with a monthly grocery budget of about $30. I had no superfluous expenses. No entertainment budget. Cancelled home internet. Worked with my job to let me work from home a couple days a week (rigged my phone to allow unlimited tethering, which served as my home Internet) to cut down in gas. I had recently been unemployed, so I had credit card debt of about $9K that I still had to pay every month. Left us with about $90 for groceries. My wife has a disease that limits her diet pretty severely, so her groceries cost about twice what mine did.
So yes. It forced me to either live off ramen noodles or default on loans/wreck my credit. An extra couple hundred bucks off my tax bill would have made all the difference.
And you called me dismissive. LOL!
My view of the world, as it pertains to this topic:
Your description of representative democracy as a truly despicable system. You should survey the world and permanently move to somewhere that is not one, please.O-trap wrote: When two wolves and one sheep are voting on what's for dinner, then any sort of democracy is oppressive.
isadore;1862327 wrote:Gosh you use “Chicken Little” then claim you are not being dismissive. You claim that the great disasters that are beyond the scope of private charity resources prove that government aid is not Gneeded. That makes no sense. When government positivey intervenes suffering is sometimes alleviated and often diminished.
isadore;1862327 wrote:The capitalist economic system has a nataral cycle that produces economic disasters, sometimes locally, sometimes regionally, sometimes nationally, sometimes internationally. Yes capitalist economies have rebounded but the recovery can take several years. It is no longer a time when people can return to the farm as many did in economic downturns before the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century. And during that time people can go through enormous suffering as they lose their jobs, their homes and their food. Government programs provided a level of aid so that our recent Great Recession had nowhere near the level of suffering as the Great Depression. The idea that “rugged individualism” and private charity could save the needy served as excuse to let suffering continue until the New Deal. Oh Noam Chomsky is a traitorous pos, I do not care what he has to say about anything.
isadore;1862327 wrote:So the Bill of Rights does not go far enough in allowing you to do every selfish thing you want. Tough. I think it’s a great addition to the Constitution and works pretty well. That is my subjective view as yours was yours.
isadore;1862327 wrote: Your description of representative democracy as a truly despicable system. You should survey the world and permanently move to somewhere that is not one, please.
isadore;1862327 wrote:Reading your circumstances, it would be very simple to point out many different causes for your situation that are more significant your tax burden. On the positive side your tax burden must be reduced in particular national, state and local income tax and FICA taxes.
isadore;1862327 wrote:Hopefully your wife will be feeling better and you will find a job.
isadore;1862327 wrote:Penn Gillette is another pos.
isadore;1862327 wrote:
