25 May 19
@eladar saidThey set up a society, not a loose federation of hermits.
You can tell what they meant by the society they set up. What they were thinking clearly is not what you are thinking.
25 May 19
@averagejoe1 saidTo understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.
I love ya' thousand> But I just cant be a'clicking on links
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man Chapter 1
25 May 19
2 edits
@no1marauder
Yes they did but each person functions within a small grouping of islands. For defense people may be called to defend their free society, free to function as they wished.
How many of the founding fathers would believe the government should tax people directly? In essence turning each person in the US into a vassal of the government. It certainly was not the majority.
It took some time, generations, but the American Rebellion is now truely a revolution
The descendants of the Aristocrats have successfully put a bit into the mouth of the American population. People like you want to tell others how great that bit feels and why it is needed.
25 May 19
@eladar saidDirect taxes were common in the States, so yes the Founders did think government could and should tax people directly.
@no1marauder
Yes they did but each person functions within a small grouping of islands. For defense people may be called to defend their free society, free to function as they wished.
How many of the founding fathers would believe the government should tax people directly? In essence turning each person in the US into a vassal of the government. It certainly was not th ...[text shortened]... ican population. People like you want to tell others how great that bit feels and why it is needed.
25 May 19
@no1marauder saidThe Federal government taxed income directly?
Direct taxes were common in the States, so yes the Founders did think government could and should tax people directly.
25 May 19
@no1marauder saidNO One Man is Capable without the aid of Society. Correct. I cannot order a few trucks of asphalt and build a road to my business. I cannot fly a jet plane to protect my business from invaders. We get that. Go Thomas Payne, and you.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting ...[text shortened]... ty ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man Chapter 1
So, each member, individual, of the said society has a meeting and agrees to use their talents for such tasks. We all agree pay TAX MONEY into a fund to pay for all that. Then, we leave the meeting, go back to our offices, and then on home for dinner. At dinner, we bless that we are all individuals free to live as we choose, avoiding communism, colletivism and socialism at all costs.
We are thankful that we figured a way (taxes) to be capable of Having the 'aid of society'...... of having our 'wants supplied' to us individuals. We teach our children to not be dependent on others. Your stuff seems to lead to dependency, I just hate it.
25 May 19
@eladar saidYou said "government", not "Federal government".
The Federal government taxed income directly?
25 May 19
@averagejoe1 saidThe capitalist system has the built in disadvantage of not being able and/or willing to employ everyone. As humans formed societies for mutual protection, it would be contrary to its very purpose to have members of said society starve to death because of an inefficient economic system. Thus, IF you are going to have a capitalist economic system based on private property with few checks on personal acquisition, you are going to have to have a social welfare system if you are going to accomplish the basic goal of society i.e. protection of its members.
NO One Man is Capable without the aid of Society. Correct. I cannot order a few trucks of asphalt and build a road to my business. I cannot fly a jet plane to protect my business from invaders. We get that. Go Thomas Payne, and you.
So, each member, individual, of the said society has a meeting and agrees to use their talents for such tasks. We all agree pa ...[text shortened]... our children to not be dependent on others. Your stuff seems to lead to dependency, I just hate it.
25 May 19
@no1marauder saidState governments directly taxed income?
You said "government", not "Federal government".
25 May 19
@eladar saidYou are goalpost shifting. Here's what you originally said:
State governments directly taxed income?
Eladar: How many of the founding fathers would believe the government should tax people directly?
The answer to that question is "virtually all of them".
25 May 19
@no1marauder saidSorry for being imprecise. In my mind I was thinking income tax as directly. So not goal post moving just being more precise.
You are goalpost shifting. Here's what you originally said:
Eladar: How many of the founding fathers would believe the government should tax people directly?
The answer to that question is "virtually all of them".
25 May 19
2 edits
@mchill saidSo obviously you think greed is a sin. It is funny that the only time Left wingers talk of sin is when it comes to greed cuz they believe that Jesus wants the state to become theocratic for a long enough time to have the state take all wealth and divvy it up evenly. But just as soon as that happens, Jesus can take a hike. No legislating away abortion, gay marriage, etc.
It never ceases to amaze me how evangelical conservatives who claim to hold Christian values such as compassion for the poor, so dear, practice so little of what they preach. Frankly, I don't know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror.
This is the result of conservative trickle down economics.
Saez and Zucman's research on wealth inequality also found ...[text shortened]... /one-brutal-sentence-captures-what-a-disaster-money-in-america-has-become/ar-AABOnO4?ocid=spartandhp
As I've already pointed out in another thread, Christians lean conservative and most who give their time and money to the poor are those very people you are condemning now. As a result, the same Christians could care less about YOUR judgments on how they vote as a result.
So as a Christian, is it a good thing to take out huge loans that you know you can't ever repay to give to the poor? Is there any such example in scripture? For the life of me, I can only conclude that this sort of thinking is really theft, but it is exactly what you want the state to do, just continue to run up huge debt to pay for everything, all they while trying to redistribute wealth based upon the morality of a secular state that has devolved into a mosh pit of amoral 24/7 scandals on both sides. I don't value these people, nor do I trust them. Funny thing, and currently so long as Trump is in power and the GOP has the Senate, you don't really either. LOL.
Charity is a wonderful thing. People who give are said to receive a bigger blessing than those obtaining those gifts. It gives the giver solace that they have done a good deed, which makes them want to give more while those who receive are grateful for the gift and thank those that gave. It is a win/win.
However, the system you endorse is that government forcibly take as much wealth from people with the assumption that they can divvy up that money in a much more righteous manner to the poor. Additionally, those that give to such a system spend all their time trying to figure out how to reduce the tax burden on themselves, even the very people who endorse such a system. The result is that those that are forced to give their money are robbed of the gift of giving because it is no longer giving, and those that receive are no longer blessed with the gift of gratitude. In fact, those that receive are left with the entitlement attitude that what they are getting is due them and is not enough. In fact, it is never enough. Conversely, this is a terrible system that robs us of or humanity
Moreover, the complaint is always that the top 1% has all the wealth, but don't you want to reduce that number to the top 0.001% by taking it and leaving bureaucrats with all the wealth? Are you really naive enough to think that those calling the shots will divvy up their wealth like all others who are forced to do so?
25 May 19
@Eladar Democrats are not advocating subsidizing free loaders. Democrats are agitating for a minimum wage that does not require taxpayers to contribute to a worker's income in order for that worker to survive. What we have now amounts to subsidizing corporations instead of demanding they pay workers a living wage so the rest of us do not have to supplement their income.
25 May 19
@phranny saidMinimum wage for those who work in exchange for termination of social programs that subsidize those who will not work?
@Eladar Democrats are not advocating subsidizing free loaders. Democrats are agitating for a minimum wage that does not require taxpayers to contribute to a worker's income in order for that worker to survive. What we have now amounts to subsidizing corporations instead of demanding they pay workers a living wage so the rest of us do not have to supplement their income.
25 May 19
@AverageJoe1 workers deserve safe work places. They deserve a living wage. I am talking about people who work. As for your comments about families, if people had affordable and accessible birth control, families would be smaller and abortions would go way down. Families that work full time ought to be able to afford a family, shelter, etc. To say that the working poor should not get married or have a family is truly like endorsing serfdom and indentured servitude. In your world view, workers have zero rights or control over their labor.