Getting America Back on Track

[Croosch]

I suppose you haven't seen the straight 10 month growth in jobs.

and still not back to normal, most the jobs that are now being created are low-class jobs for kids usually. But most those are being taken by adults on account of the fact that we have a lack of good jobs open. Which in return ends up hurting college kids who may just need a summer job.

[westamastaflash]

So what would you have us do Krush? Whats your "solution" to this problem? I claim its freedom. What's your answer?

["Sixhits"]

THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT IS TO ALLOW A FREE PERSON TO SUCCEED OR FAIL ON THEIR OWN MERITS, FREE FROM FORCE OR FRAUD OF OTHERS.

From the Preamble to the US Constitution: The "job" of Government.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Let's look at a few points:

I think we've demonstraited in the 1860's the prevailing opinion on what is a more perfect union.

We can all agree that establishing justive is good -- we may likely differ on our interpretations of what justice is.

As for domestic traquility -- again, we can agree on the concept but likely disagree on the execution.

Common defense -- ditto.

Promote the general welfare: This is the part of the Constitution that seems to be in debate right now. This concept, the general welfare of the people, is at the heart of what the governmental philosophies disagree on -- from Liberatarians to Communists to Fascists. West seems to be advocating that it is the duty of the individual citizen to provide for their own welfare. Krush agrues that it is the duty of the government to provide for our own welfare. But I think both miss the point: it is the duty of the United Stated federal government to promote the common good. Again, most disagree on what defines common good -- or general welfare as the Preamble states -- but all agreet that it is the job of the government to promote it.

West: it is not the government's duty to provide jobs so much as insure that their is an environment that promotes job growth. There is also a notion that it is the government's duty to insure that the people are able to achieve the maximum potential in their personal lives because it is in the common good for everyone to achieve greatly.  This is where I fail to understand your wraith for those that want the government to do more and do it better. The government itself provides job; it also designs the commercial fabric by which we all are employeed -- to argue that the Government is not required to produce jobs is a foolish miss-interpretation of the truth.  The Government is the ONLY entity that is required to produce jobs!

As for Liberty: again, we all agree that this is our highest ideal. And this is where I get incredibly frustrated -- it is the government's job to promote Liberty above all else. Liberty was the pan-ultimate reason for the Revolution, it was the most sacred of ideals that permiates our social fabric, it is the cornerstone of progressive social changes such as the freeing of the slaves, the female right to vote, as well as rights such as the right to bear arms. And I look at the man in office today and can see how he clearly DOES NOT value our Liberty. The actions he's undertaken have devalued our personal liberties, built structural limits on them, altered the means and ways by which the federal government may legally violate them, and done so all under the guise of protecting our Liberty.

Which is the heart of his personal evil.  He's a liar and he does not cherish our Constitution.

So, some immeadiate counters:

"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A RIGHT THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE ELSE TO PRODUCE IT. "

Wrong. The only reason we have any rights at all is because someone, long ago, wanted to codify those rights. In essence, they were produced.

"It is their job to then life that life, provide for themsevles using their body and mind, and seek their own happiness. Nowhere does it say that they have to "help" others, that somehow their work and productive ability should be SACRIFICED to allow others to freeload off them."

Again, I am not personally required to give to charity. However, I do have to pay taxes. If I'm wealthy, I pay more because I have more to pay. The Government has a duty to promote the general wellfare, NOT my personal wellfare. If the general wellfare benifits at my expense, and especially when I can afford that expense, then that is Good and, more to the point, is in keeping to the letter of the Constitution.

"THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY IS the TAXPAYERS money."

I completely disagree with this. The Government's money was the taxpayer's money. Now it is the Government's money, and the Government is charged to use that money in ways as outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution.  It is foolishly simplistic to call the Government's money the taxpayers -- sort of like saying that the money I give to Apple is really my money. Well, it was. Now it is theirs.

And remember, Taxes pay for services. We all want services. If we reduce taxes we by default are reducing our own services. We can nit-pick around this but that's the factual reallity -- you cannot get something for nothing.

"Charity is all fine when IT IS DONE FREELY WITHOUT COERCION."

Taxes are not Charity. Taxes our are duty as citizens. They are not coerced, they are put in place by elected officials who represent some of the interests of their districs. Arguing that paying taxes is a form of coerced charity is misguided -- cause invariably the taxes we pay affect us to our personal benefit.

This get back to the concept of general welfare: do rich people need more services or do poor peeople? Can the rich or the poor afford on their own a high standard of living? Who does the Government have a higher duty to, when you take into consideration it's duty to promote the general welfare?

"Learn to LIVE WITH LESS."

Really West, what sort of America do you want us to live in?

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I suppose you haven't seen the straight 10 month growth in jobs.

and still not back to normal, most the jobs that are now being created are low-class jobs for kids usually. But most those are being taken by adults on account of the fact that we have a lack of good jobs open. Which in return ends up hurting college kids who may just need a summer job.

I didn't get my current job until AFTER September 11, 2001.  And I would have to say it is a very well paying job.  And I know of a bunch of people just like me, that got really great paying jobs during the last 2 years.  Explain that.

By the way, I can show anybody on this forum how to not go to college, or even finish high school for that matter, and get a job that STARTS OUT paying over $40,000 a year.  And you can easily be making over $60,000 a year within 2 years.

[BTs_Mysterio]

West, you say freedom all to often. Learn to use it properly and not spam it as a low blow argument.

[BTs_Mysterio]

West, you say freedom all to often. Learn to use it properly and not spam it as a low blow argument.

["Sixhits"]

I suppose you haven't seen the straight 10 month growth in jobs.

and still not back to normal, most the jobs that are now being created are low-class jobs for kids usually. But most those are being taken by adults on account of the fact that we have a lack of good jobs open. Which in return ends up hurting college kids who may just need a summer job.

I didn't get my current job until AFTER September 11, 2001.  And I would have to say it is a very well paying job.  And I know of a bunch of people just like me, that got really great paying jobs during the last 2 years.  Explain that.

By the way, I can show anybody on this forum how to not go to college, or even finish high school for that matter, and get a job that STARTS OUT paying over $40,000 a year.  And you can easily be making over $60,000 a year within 2 years.

As I've said before, you're personal success is not reflective of what's happened in America.

First and formost, the United States over the reign of Bush has had a net job loss.  That is, more jobs have been lost since Bush took office than gained.  It is all well and good to point to job gains in the last year, but you need to put that into perspective: job "growth" has NOT reached the leveled predicted by the White House nor the levels needed to break even with the net job loss.

That is not what I'd call economic success.

So really, how great is Bush's economic policy? And how great is the White House at hitting it's own expectations?

Also, before I get painted with the knee-jerk wingers response that I'm being too pesimistic, you need to remind yourself that generally reporting on the facts is considering telling the truth, rather than being negative.  In sum, saying things aren't going well isn't a bad thing when it's true.

[BTs_FahQ2]

Let me create more havok within your politics discussion about economics and jobs.

Can someone who blindly supports either party please explain to me why both sides are seriously considering amnesty for illegals.  On top of this, both parties are also considering adopting a bill that would allow illegal immigrants who worked in the US to receive social security.  I mean, the tax burden, the already fucked social security problem compounded with these ideas would rain shit on us for some time to come.

I don't know what side you support or care, but you do know both sides are going to sell you out.  And why would they sell you out, because right now they feel that Hispanic america is the swing vote for what is currently a close election.  Can you believe they are fucking us over for what was only 5% of the vote in the last election.  Not only that, but the only place the majority of those votes were cast were in 3 states.

Don't think I am some racist nut either.  I am half mexican and decendant of acutal illegal immigrants.  But I don't condone what my ancestors did or what mexicans and a large number of asians are doing.  Being in california we have a large eye opening into the issue and how it is slowly bleeding our state dry.

So, for all of you out there on the I love democrat, I love republican train, they are both currently caring only about their party and their own personal success.  Either party in actuality really doesn't give a shit about you or their policies, they want to win.

["Sixhits"]

Let me create more havok within your politics discussion about economics and jobs.

Can someone who blindly supports either party please explain to me why both sides are seriously considering amnesty for illegals.  On top of this, both parties are also considering adopting a bill that would allow illegal immigrants who worked in the US to receive social security.  I mean, the tax burden, the already fucked social security problem compounded with these ideas would rain shit on us for some time to come.

I don't know what side you support or care, but you do know both sides are going to sell you out.  And why would they sell you out, because right now they feel that Hispanic america is the swing vote for what is currently a close election.  Can you believe they are fucking us over for what was only 5% of the vote in the last election.  Not only that, but the only place the majority of those votes were cast were in 3 states.

Don't think I am some racist nut either.  I am half mexican and decendant of acutal illegal immigrants.  But I don't condone what my ancestors did or what mexicans and a large number of asians are doing.  Being in california we have a large eye opening into the issue and how it is slowly bleeding our state dry.

So, for all of you out there on the I love democrat, I love republican train, they are both currently caring only about their party and their own personal success.  Either party in actuality really doesn't give a shit about you or their policies, they want to win.

"Either party in actuality really doesn't give a shit about you or their policies, they want to win."

Pretty much. But it varies by degrees.

The problem with American politics -- or the beauty of it -- is that is forces to cover a range of issues. A party that truly reflects only one thing can rarely become elected and will never stay in power. Do I think amnesty for illegals is good or bad? I haven't thought about it, nor looked into it, so I can't give it an informed judgement.

My knee jerk reaction is -- I'd rather have these people "in the system" than outside of it. If you make them citizens, or give them all green cards, then they have to pay into the system, and they have to pay taxes. Instead of being a raw burden on society they can start to self support it.

But would that happen easily? Could it happen without major structural changes to policies like Social Sec?  I don't know.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

So, for all of you out there on the I love democrat, I love republican train, they are both currently caring only about their party and their own personal success.  Either party in actuality really doesn't give a shit about you or their policies, they want to win.

I don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants at all.  It is the one big issue of Bush's that the most Conservatives are actually speaking out against.  You can hear how wrong it is from me, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage (the first three are Republicans, the last one is an Independant Conservative).  You see, unlike the cool-aid drinking liberals (that would follow Satan if he was a card-carrying Democrat), most Conservatives stand up for what is right and wrong, not just what the party says.  Sure, there are some ultra-right wing Republicans too, but not nearly like the "bow-down-to-the-democratic-party" liberals.  When Bush is wrong about something, I say so.  Take John F'ing Kerry for example.  He is one of the biggest scum-bags that has ever ran for President, yet the Democratic Party is painting him out to be the Second Coming of Jesus.  Yeah Right.

["Sixhits"]

So, for all of you out there on the I love democrat, I love republican train, they are both currently caring only about their party and their own personal success.  Either party in actuality really doesn't give a shit about you or their policies, they want to win.

I don't support amnesty for illegal immigrants at all.  It is the one big issue of Bush's that the most Conservatives are actually speaking out against.  You can hear how wrong it is from me, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage (the first three are Republicans, the last one is an Independant Conservative).  You see, unlike the cool-aid drinking liberals (that would follow Satan if he was a card-carrying Democrat), most Conservatives stand up for what is right and wrong, not just what the party says.  Sure, there are some ultra-right wing Republicans too, but not nearly like the "bow-down-to-the-democratic-party" liberals.  When Bush is wrong about something, I say so.  Take John F'ing Kerry for example.  He is one of the biggest scum-bags that has ever ran for President, yet the Democratic Party is painting him out to be the Second Coming of Jesus.  Yeah Right.

1) what exactly is wrong about giving I.A.s amnesty?
2) what makes Kerry one of the biggest scumbags to run for Pres?

Nice monkey wrench, Fah.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

1) what exactly is wrong about giving I.A.s amnesty?

Oh, you mean besides the fact that it tells every immigrant that got here legally to fuck off, you did it the wrong way?  Wow, I don't know, maybe the fact that it is ILLEGAL!!!  Illegal, that means AGAINST THE LAW.  What part of, YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???  I could go into a lot more depth, but I'm just itching to answer question number 2:

2) what makes Kerry one of the biggest scumbags to run for Pres?

(the following is from research I did for a group of Veterans who are against John Kerry being elected President)

Sen. John F'ing Kerry regularly mentions his Vietnam War combat experience, during which he received three Purple Hearts, the Silver Star and Bronze Star.

However, the Massachusetts Democrat doesn't like to talk much about how he received the awards or the time after he returned home when he was rubbing shoulders with Hanoi Jane Fonda as a much-celebrated organizer for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), one of America's most radical pro-communist groups.

Sen. Kerry, the "noble statesman" and "highly decorated Vietnam vet" of today, is a Far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in the early 1970s.

Soon after Kerry, as a Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam, was awarded the Silver Star, he used an obscure Navy regulation to leave Vietnam and his crew before completing his tour of duty.

After returning home, he quit the Navy early and changed the color of his politics to become a leader of VVAW. Kerry wasted no time organizing opposition in the United States against the efforts of his former buddies still ducking communist bullets back in Vietnam.

Kerry participated in the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation where his fellow protesters accused his fellow GIs of war crimes.

Kerry's betrayal of American prisoners of war, his blatant disrespect for the families of our missing in action, Vietnam veterans, the military, his support for communist Vietnam and his waffling over the issue of use of force in Iraq proves he is a self promoting Chameleon Senator who cannot be relied on to protect the best interests of the United States.

["Sixhits"]

1) what exactly is wrong about giving I.A.s amnesty?

Oh, you mean besides the fact that it tells every immigrant that got here legally to fuck off, you did it the wrong way?  Wow, I don't know, maybe the fact that it is ILLEGAL!!!  Illegal, that means AGAINST THE LAW.  What part of, YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???  I could go into a lot more depth, but I'm just itching to answer question number 2:

2) what makes Kerry one of the biggest scumbags to run for Pres?

(the following is from research I did for a group of Veterans who are against John Kerry being elected President)

Sen. John F'ing Kerry regularly mentions his Vietnam War combat experience, during which he received three Purple Hearts, the Silver Star and Bronze Star.

However, the Massachusetts Democrat doesn't like to talk much about how he received the awards or the time after he returned home when he was rubbing shoulders with Hanoi Jane Fonda as a much-celebrated organizer for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), one of America's most radical pro-communist groups.

Sen. Kerry, the "noble statesman" and "highly decorated Vietnam vet" of today, is a Far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in the early 1970s.

Soon after Kerry, as a Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam, was awarded the Silver Star, he used an obscure Navy regulation to leave Vietnam and his crew before completing his tour of duty.

After returning home, he quit the Navy early and changed the color of his politics to become a leader of VVAW. Kerry wasted no time organizing opposition in the United States against the efforts of his former buddies still ducking communist bullets back in Vietnam.

Kerry participated in the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation where his fellow protesters accused his fellow GIs of war crimes.

Kerry's betrayal of American prisoners of war, his blatant disrespect for the families of our missing in action, Vietnam veterans, the military, his support for communist Vietnam and his waffling over the issue of use of force in Iraq proves he is a self promoting Chameleon Senator who cannot be relied on to protect the best interests of the United States.

I'm tired and have a headache, so I'll return to respond on somethings later. But as a teaser of what's to come:

"Sen. Kerry, the "noble statesman" and "highly decorated Vietnam vet" of today, is a Far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in the early 1970s."

And the stern "war President" G.W. is a far cry from the coke snorting, drunk driving, abortion forcing, dereliction of duty "dog ate my records" daddy put me into the National Guard punk that he was in the 1970s.

I mean, pwnd.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

And the stern "war President" G.W. is a far cry from the coke snorting, drunk driving, abortion forcing, dereliction of duty "dog ate my records" daddy put me into the National Guard punk that he was in the 1970s.

You may be right on the coke snorting, drunk driving, and daddy got me into the National Guard part.  But where did the abortion forcing come into play?  And Bush was never derelict in his duty.  If you had ever served in the U.S. Military, especially the National Guard or Reserves, you would know that stuff like that went on all the time (and to a large extent, still goes on all the time).  Everybody acts like he just went AWOL for a couple of years.  Hate to break it to you, but you aren't AWOL when you get permission to do it.[/size]

["Sixhits"]

And the stern "war President" G.W. is a far cry from the coke snorting, drunk driving, abortion forcing, dereliction of duty "dog ate my records" daddy put me into the National Guard punk that he was in the 1970s.

You may be right on the coke snorting, drunk driving, and daddy got me into the National Guard part.  But where did the abortion forcing come into play?  And Bush was never derelict in his duty.  If you had ever served in the U.S. Military, especially the National Guard or Reserves, you would know that stuff like that went on all the time (and to a large extent, still goes on all the time).  Everybody acts like he just went AWOL for a couple of years.  Hate to break it to you, but you aren't AWOL when you get permission to do it.[/size]

The abortion is an open rumor long floated and supposedly proved by L. Flint.  

Whether or not an action is common does not excuse that action. Stealing is common -- is stealing any less a crime? What Bush did was a punishable offense and he should have been courtmartialed. Conviently, the records that would prove his innocence or guilt are missing. Convient, because the records that are missing are solely for the monthes when he dissappeared. And he never got permission to skip his physical -- and he made us waste millions of dollars training him, all to see him grounded. It reveals a serious character flaw in him: his sense of entitlement and his inable to act responsiblity. That, and it was criminal.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Whether or not an action is common does not excuse that action. Stealing is common -- is stealing any less a crime? What Bush did was a punishable offense and he should have been courtmartialed. Conviently, the records that would prove his innocence or guilt are missing. Convient, because the records that are missing are solely for the monthes when he dissappeared. And he never got permission to skip his physical -- and he made us waste millions of dollars training him, all to see him grounded. It reveals a serious character flaw in him: his sense of entitlement and his inable to act responsiblity. That, and it was criminal.

It wasn't criminal!  It wasn't a crime!  In the National Guard, you can skip an entire YEAR of service, as long as somebody knows where you are and as long as you make up that service (which Bush did, by the way).  You need to learn something about the way the National Guard operates, instead of just listening to what Democrats have to say about it.  I happen to know a little about the subject.

Also, if this was really an issue, then it would still be getting played up and would never have died down the way it has.  Just like in the 2000 election, the Democrats bring this up just to get everyone thinking about it, but they can only play it up for so long before it dies back down again.  You can probably expect it to come up at least once more before the election.[/size]

[westamastaflash]

Promote the general welfare: This is the part of the Constitution that seems to be in debate right now. This concept, the general welfare of the people, is at the heart of what the governmental philosophies disagree on -- from Liberatarians to Communists to Fascists. West seems to be advocating that it is the duty of the individual citizen to provide for their own welfare. Krush agrues that it is the duty of the government to provide for our own welfare. But I think both miss the point: it is the duty of the United Stated federal government to promote the common good. Again, most disagree on what defines common good -- or general welfare as the Preamble states -- but all agreet that it is the job of the government to promote it.

Ah but here's the first logical flaw - there is no such thing as the common good. This is a fiction - people only exist as individuals, thus any "common good" can only be regarded as the sum of "good" across a society - but becuase individuals preferences cannot be compared across persons (basic economic law about preferences), this is irrelevant.

What might be good for one person may be bad for another - and even if 99% of people agree on what is "good" - they still don't have any right to force it on another. Just because a society can see what is bad - based on destruction of indiviuals rights - does not mean they can then define "good".

it is not the government's duty to provide jobs so much as insure that their is an environment that promotes job growth.

So far, logically correct. However, your premise is too wide, which leads you into the fallacy:

There is also a notion that it is the government's duty to insure that the people are able to achieve the maximum potential in their personal lives because it is in the common good for everyone to achieve greatly.? This is where I fail to understand your wraith for those that want the government to do more and do it better. The government itself provides job; it also designs the commercial fabric by which we all are employeed -- to argue that the Government is not required to produce jobs is a foolish miss-interpretation of the truth.? The Government is the ONLY entity that is required to produce jobs!

Again, a logical argument thats is predicated on incorrect premises.
The market system is INVISIBLE, no one directs it, no one "created" it - especially not government. It is this "invisible hand" that Smith spoke of in Wealth of Nations. The commercial fabric was developing fine and dandy without government in the early 19th century, however the government decided that it needed to be involved, and started creating legal fictions such as "corporations" - a legal person that does not exist. Corporations in the physical sense had been around for a long time before that - partnerships etc - but by creating this legal fiction government was able to regulate what people were able to do with thier own assets.

This all comes back to a battle that was lost in the 19th century - the battle for the central bank. And the wrong side won - banking is the only monopolistic industry in existence today. And because of this, the government now controls the amount of free capital in a society. This is completely wrong!

As for Liberty: again, we all agree that this is our highest ideal. And this is where I get incredibly frustrated -- it is the government's job to promote Liberty above all else. Liberty was the pan-ultimate reason for the Revolution, it was the most sacred of ideals that permiates our social fabric, it is the cornerstone of progressive social changes such as the freeing of the slaves, the female right to vote, as well as rights such as the right to bear arms. And I look at the man in office today and can see how he clearly DOES NOT value our Liberty. The actions he's undertaken have devalued our personal liberties, built structural limits on them, altered the means and ways by which the federal government may legally violate them, and done so all under the guise of protecting our Liberty.

True. But is the alternative any different? If bush takes away your freedom to burn the flag, how is kerry taking away your freedom to BUY a flag (via tax increases) any different?  Or censoring your speech by calling it "hate speech"? Or promoting "diversity" by claiming that blacks are not as smart as whites so they need to have lower standards to get into college?

Which is the heart of his personal evil.? He's a liar and he does not cherish our Constitution.

And the opposition does? A man who swore to uphold the constitution, yet claims that he committed war crimes? A man who went to europe to aid the Communist North Vietnamese (an enemy of this nation at the time, and still today)? Clearly he missed that part about not being a tratior.

So, some immeadiate counters:

"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A RIGHT THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE ELSE TO PRODUCE IT. "

Wrong. The only reason we have any rights at all is because someone, long ago, wanted to codify those rights. In essence, they were produced.

From that definition of produce, you can get that. But I was aiming for something more along the idea that somehow I have a right to, for example, have food. Food is produced by a farmer. Do I have the right to go and take it from him without exchanging value for value?

And I still maintain that the fundamental rights are INTRINSIC - meaning that they derive from what man IS - and whether they are codified or not, they still exist via logical deduction from what man is.

Again, I am not personally required to give to charity. However, I do have to pay taxes. If I'm wealthy, I pay more because I have more to pay. The Government has a duty to promote the general wellfare, NOT my personal wellfare. If the general wellfare benifits at my expense, and especially when I can afford that expense, then that is Good and, more to the point, is in keeping to the letter of the Constitution.

Again, see above - what is "general welfare"? Preferences cannot be compared across multiple persons - so there is no such thing as the "common good" or "general welfare". So it is right to force someone to be a slave to others - to take their money and give it to those who have not earned it? Who is to say that "they can afford it" - that money can be used for many things - including some that you altruists hold dear - getting people jobs, for instance. If the government takes that money, how do I hire someone with it? Or loan it out?

"THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY IS the TAXPAYERS money."
I completely disagree with this. The Government's money was the taxpayer's money. Now it is the Government's money, and the Government is charged to use that money in ways as outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution.? It is foolishly simplistic to call the Government's money the taxpayers -- sort of like saying that the money I give to Apple is really my money. Well, it was. Now it is theirs.

The FUNDAMENTAL difference here is that the government has taken that money by FORCE. You give apple money on your own free will - you pay taxes because you know the IRS will come knocking if you don't.

And remember, Taxes pay for services. We all want services. If we reduce taxes we by default are reducing our own services. We can nit-pick around this but that's the factual reallity -- you cannot get something for nothing.

But the point is that these services are offerred better in a free society. The only services we need are the ones that protect our freedoms - the police to protect our property, the courts to protect our contracts, and the military to protect our lives.

"Charity is all fine when IT IS DONE FREELY WITHOUT COERCION."
Taxes are not Charity. Taxes our are duty as citizens. They are not coerced, they are put in place by elected officials who represent some of the interests of their districs. Arguing that paying taxes is a form of coerced charity is misguided -- cause invariably the taxes we pay affect us to our personal benefit.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. You argue that a democratic system, where elected officals are right is the solution. I argue that strict rule of law and respect for individual rights are the solution (see Hong Kong under the british - though no one elected the governors, Hong Kong was one of the freest places on earth!)

If an elected government respects individual rights and property rights, then that government works. When it infringes on these, it is just as immoral as the communists under Stalin or the Germans under Hitler.

This get back to the concept of general welfare: do rich people need more services or do poor peeople? Can the rich or the poor afford on their own a high standard of living? Who does the Government have a higher duty to, when you take into consideration it's duty to promote the general welfare?

A high standard of living is the reward for ability, saving, and investment.

When it comes down to it, to promote the general welfare is done best through allowing the free market to floruish, not stamping it down.

"Learn to LIVE WITH LESS."
Really West, what sort of America do you want us to live in?

You took this out of context, as I was discussing how the poor can improve their lot - by saving, by investing, by gaining skills.

These days, very few people know proper fiscal management. If we have government schools, we need to start teaching kids about how to use money - and how money WORKS. There is a huge emptiness of knowledge about basic economics in the country today.  


EDIT: Fixed Quotes

[Mr. Lothario]

     Flash, your sexy, sexy Libertarianism brings a tear to my eye.