On government charity, in general.

[boutons_deux]

Yoni should try stand-up comedy. He doesn't need writers.

[coyotes_geek]

the govt has some responsibility to provide basic services for those who need it. how hard is that to understand?

How hard is it to understand that when you're spending more than you're bringing in it's going to get you into trouble? The sad truth of the matter is that there are always going to be more worthy causes than there will be money to spend on them. Unfortunately that means someone's needs are going to have to go un-met. I wish it weren't that way, but it is. To deny that reality is naive.

Since when have we ever cared about the debt of future generations? It's a novel concept that Republicans like to dream up that it's somehow immoral that we're burdening future generation with debt. Well sorry to burst your bubble that's exactly what every future generation has ever done. That's why problems haven't been solved nor will they probably ever. Every generation just constantly pushes problems further down the line. This one is no exception, and neither will the next be either.

Even though I know you're right, I for one find the "every generation does it" argument unacceptable and do not wish to be a part of it.

And yes, when it comes to fiscal responsibility republicans are hypocrites.

debt matters now because Obama is in the white house.. I didn't hear one complaint about not paying for the war...

Had I been posting here at that time you would have heard me complain about it. For good measure, I'll do it right now. I have a problem that the Iraq war was not paid for. Bush should have either raised taxes or cut spending elsewhere to pay for it.

collecting taxes is stealing?

No. But borrowing a bunch of money and sticking future generations with the tab is.

[Duff McCartney]

Even though I know you're right, I for one find the "every generation does it" argument unacceptable and do not wish to be a part of it.

You're right..and I find it unacceptable that the last generation couldn't do jack about extreme poverty in the world. I find it unacceptable that the last generation allows starvation to occur in the world.

You may not wish to be a part of it, but you are. As am I.

[boutons_deux]

"Obama's debt is in a league of its own."

Repug spin. Repugs' $2T+ unfunded debt from the Iraq war-for-oil is just fine by you.

hey, dumb , the Banksters' Great Depression your lover boy dubya left him, and that he is successfully mitigating, is in a league of its own.

[Yonivore]

You're right..and I find it unacceptable that the last generation couldn't do jack about extreme poverty in the world. I find it unacceptable that the last generation allows starvation to occur in the world.

You may not wish to be a part of it, but you are. As am I.

I find it unacceptable the United States government has thrown literally trillions of dollars at the problem since Lyndon Johnson's inception of the War on Poverty a few decades ago.

Maybe, just maybe, government isn't the answer. After all that would have been trillions of dollars Americans could have used to buy goods and services that would have kept people employed; trillions of dollars Americans could have given to charities that don't skim about 30% off the top through inefficiency, waste, and fraud.

That's what's unacceptable. Government doesn't know how to do charity. Period. They should quit trying.

[Spurminator]

LOL @ "taxed out of prosperity"

[Yonivore]

I don't consider it charity. I consider it leveling out the income inequalities. And it has nothing to do with people that don't do anything.

So, are you also in favor of leveling out the production, innovation, intelligence, and entrepreneurial inequalities?

Dude, there's no such thing as an "income inequality." People inherit, earn, or create the wealth they deserve.

Except, of course, for criminals like Bernie Madoff...and, we have laws for them.

[EmptyMan]

I don't consider it charity. I consider it leveling out the income inequalities. And it has nothing to do with people that don't do anything.

[LnGrrrR]

I see one problem with the "flat tax". It's that the money is WORTH much more to a person who has much less of it.

To a person who makes $10,000 a year, every cent is valuable, as they're barely getting by. But to a person making $100,000 a year, alot of that is disposable income.

In other words, the person who makes $100,000 a year can afford to lose $10,000. The person making $10,000 can not afford to lose it.

I guess, then, I'd be ok with a flat tax after a certain amount... perhaps the basic amount to survive decently. (I have no idea what that would be, offhand.)

[LnGrrrR]

I would like to agree that there seems no way for a government to lift up anyone out of poverty; the best it can do is provide temporary crutches for motivated individuals (ie. scholarships)

[boutons_deux]

"money is WORTH much more to a person who has much less of it"

aka, the marginal/incremental value of the next unit of money. It declines.

That's why all industrial govts have progressive tax schedules, and most have substantial deductions for the bottom end, esp in countries wherever there is a VAT of 15% or more, so that 40% or 50% of population pays no income tax (but do pay a flat tax rate on their health and pension plans, even unemployment checks have health/pension deducted).

Whott's using the old Movement (wealthy) Conservative/St Ronnie canard of Welfare Queen-in-a-Cadillac to paint all poor people as lazy bas s and welfare cheats that have to punished.

"They can just be all be $B/year hedge fund managers, but they're lazy"

[Duff McCartney]

Maybe, just maybe, government isn't the answer. After all that would have been trillions of dollars Americans could have used to buy goods and services that would have kept people employed; trillions of dollars Americans could have given to charities that don't skim about 30% off the top through inefficiency, waste, and fraud.

@ Americans giving to charities. I find it laughable you think anyone with money would ever willingly give it up to benefit the poor.

That's the reason we have things like taxes and minimum wage. The rich will never give up a cent of their money. Ever.

[coyotes_geek]

@ Americans giving to charities. I find it laughable you think anyone with money would ever willingly give it up to benefit the poor.

That's the reason we have things like taxes and minimum wage. The rich will never give up a cent of their money. Ever.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/

[boutons_deux]

AP article:

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax


http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0407/hou...ed-income-tax/

[coyotes_geek]

AP article:

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax


http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0407/hou...ed-income-tax/

boutons' article touches on one of those unpleasant topics not too many people like to talk about. The fact that there are way too many households on the lower end of the income spectrum not paying their fair share of taxes.

[rjv]

Actually it does. Government charity, or whatever you want to call it, gets financed through debt. Debt that will fall squarely upon the shoulders of future generations of Americans who currently have no say in the matter, thus lowering their standard of living.

Balance the ing budget and then I will gladly entertain a debate as to who needs government assistance. But to just put the petal to the metal on the debt-mobile and "level out the income inequalities" by stealing from our children is something every single one of us should be ashamed of.

whether there is charity or not that debt will still fall on our shoulders. if there are uneducated, we have to deal with that. if there is an unskilled workforce, likewise. if there is more crime...more malnurished infants...etc..

and the norm nowadays is for us to pay for what corporate america gets more than anything else so i can not understand why the poor are yoni's pariah.

[coyotes_geek]

whether there is charity or not that debt will still fall on our shoulders. if there are uneducated, we have to deal with that. if there is an unskilled workforce, likewise. if there is more crime...more malnurished infants...etc..

Operative phrase being "we have to deal with that". Right now, we aren't dealing with it. We're just passing the buck to future generations making it their financial obligation to deal with our uneducated and unskilled. That is absolutely selfish on our part because not only are we making them pay for our problems, we're reducing their capacity to help their generation's uneducated and unskilled.

and the norm nowadays is for us to pay for what corporate america gets more than anything else so i can not understand why the poor are yoni's pariah.

Any talks about scaling back welfare should start with the corporate welfare that is so near and dear to both our political parties.

[rjv]

Operative phrase being "we have to deal with that". Right now, we aren't dealing with it. We're just passing the buck to future generations making it their financial obligation to deal with our uneducated and unskilled. That is absolutely selfish on our part because not only are we making them pay for our problems, we're reducing their capacity to help their generation's uneducated and unskilled.

that actually goes to what i am stating though; that there are going to be social issues confronting posterity unless there are programs in place to stem the tide. i certainly do not trust corporations enough when it comes to altruistic endeavors on such a wide scale.

Any talks about scaling back welfare should start with the corporate welfare that is so near and dear to both our political parties.

that is something posters such as yoni tend to ignore.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL @ "taxed out of prosperity"

But we are, and it's the fault of everyone with the "en lement mentality."

[Wild Cobra]

I see one problem with the "flat tax". It's that the money is WORTH much more to a person who has much less of it.

To a person who makes $10,000 a year, every cent is valuable, as they're barely getting by. But to a person making $100,000 a year, alot of that is disposable income.

In other words, the person who makes $100,000 a year can afford to lose $10,000. The person making $10,000 can not afford to lose it.

I guess, then, I'd be ok with a flat tax after a certain amount... perhaps the basic amount to survive decently. (I have no idea what that would be, offhand.)

I understand your sentiment completely. However, a primary reason we are in this sinking ship is because the poor pay no taxes. We need equal suffrage when it comes to taxes. Everyone needs to pay, so that they will stop voting in assholes who want to raise spending/taxes.

No en lements.

Everyone pays taxes.

Until we adopt such a scheme, we will always have the poor electing politicians who are willing to legally steal other people's money and buy those votes.

[coyotes_geek]

I guess, then, I'd be ok with a flat tax after a certain amount... perhaps the basic amount to survive decently. (I have no idea what that would be, offhand.)

That's what I'm partial to. Maybe just use whatever the defined poverty cut off is and go flat tax on income above that amount.

[Wild Cobra]

@ Americans giving to charities. I find it laughable you think anyone with money would ever willingly give it up to benefit the poor.

It happens rather frequently, mostly to those who are temporarily needy and not those who work the system.

That's the reason we have things like taxes and minimum wage. The rich will never give up a cent of their money. Ever.

Just because you are a stingy ass, doesn't mean we all are.

[George Gervin's Afro]

But we are, and it's the fault of everyone with the "en lement mentality."

even those who willingly accept unemployment benefits? would they be at fault?

[RandomGuy]

I see your non thinking ass still cuts and pastes.

I dunno, all things considered this is actually a not too shabby invitation for an open discussion.

I am not so naive to believe, however, that the OP's choice of topic/quotes was anywhere near a fair attempt to put forth a balanced discussion showing both sides in the OP and allowing us as readers to actually see a side of the topic that the OP doesn't agree with..

That said, it is something worth discussing.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/

Yep, the USA is number 1 if you go by private donations. Liberal pundits like to show the government donations, where the USA is sorely lacking. They purposely leave out the charity that is the discretion of the people rather than the politicians.

Also interesting that most are English speaking nations.