|
|
Originally Posted by mikedog
You can adjust/set them (pay for) at whatever value you need in order to recover/replace the taxes the socialist Dems steal from your estate. Talk to or PM maddawg as he can set you up or answer your questions I believe.
I just don't see this glaring inconsistency that you speak of. Conservatism is not grounded in the concept that prosperity should be tied to individual effort. That is a socialist platform. Rather, conservatism, and particularly libertarian conservatism, is rooted in the principles of personal and economic freedom. The right to own private property is a critical aspect--if not the critical aspect--of personal and economic freedom.
Back to your comparison of inheritance and welfare: your comparison merely highlights the lack of contributions made by the recipients. This similarity is irrelevant to a conservative. The private property rights--not the contributions made by the individuals--are of primary importance. The concept of welfare is objectionable to a conservative because it involves the involuntarily transfer of wealth from one member of society to another. This amounts to a taking of property from one citizen (taxes) and giving it to another (in the form of free healthcare, food stamps, tax refund checks).
Note: I'm not opposed to our government providing a safety net for the poor. However, I believe that these programs should be administered by states and funded with state taxes--not federal taxes.
??? News to me.
overated.
I agree its a poor substitute for voluntary charity. Which is why I would advocate for tax credits (as opposed to deductions) for charitable contributions.[/quote]
But I would submit that the demand for involuntary transfers only arose in our society because voluntary contributions were failing to meeting the need.
I still believe that if all the professed Christ-followers in America would give as freely as the Bible instructs them, the demand for govt social programs would plummet overnight.
The founders didn't think so:
5th Amendment-U.S. Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is why America doesn't need all of the govt social programs. The "professed Christ-followers in America" do give freely as the Bible instructs. We are about the only ones to be honest and are easily number 1 in giving! Even Obama admits that the "churches" HAVE DONE THEIR FAIR SHARE. BTW and just for grins feel free to look up our DEM leaders, in comparison, to see what % they give to charities. It's of public record and very appalling every year. We've posted these on BB&B for years.
All of them? Really?
I'd say that passing a law, via the political/legislative process by duly elected officials, saying that taxes are hereby established a certian rate, amounts to due process. And moreover, the pirivilege of living in America amounts to just compensation.
I'd also submit that amendment was probably adopted with regards to real property, (land). But if you're one of those folks who believes in a "living, breating" Constitution, I'll respect that.
Last edited by Champ967; 04-21-2011 at 08:00 PM.
Not if it's governed like China.
It's (we're) not governed like China. China doesn't do handouts; at least, not to the proletariat.
"U.S. households are now getting more in cash handouts from the government than they are paying in taxes for the first time since the Great Depression."
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...#ixzz1KDoLJvWP
I don't consider Social Security to be a government handout, at least not for those people like myself who pay far more into the social security slush fund than they ever will take out. The problem is that my social security dollars are being used to subsidize other people who aren't paying their share.
John Stossel did a report on SS some years back, in typical Stossel style. One of his investigations took him to the streets of L.A. where he interviewed a drughead, who, thinking Stossel was also a down-on-his-luck loser, coached him on how to make a good living. Went something like this:
the druggie was found almost dead on the street (the price of a single bullet is a lot less than what it costs taxpayers otherwise....something to think about), he got "free" everything, a hospital stay, rehab, food/shelter/counseling. Eventually, mostly recovered, he was guided to apply for disability from SS, because, after all, he couldn't hold a job with a fried brain, right. This druggie confessed to Stossel, who he thought was just another street person (didn't know he was being filmed/recorded) that the SS check was "only" $670/month. That's okay, Stossel pretended to protest, but that's not enough to live comfortably in L.A. Not to worry, the druggie said, what you do is you use that $670 to buy drugs from a dealer....a wholesaler, Stossel offered....yeah! then, you sell those drugs for about $3,000 on the street. You live on the $3K, tax free, of course! the druggie said.
Stossel later reported the dude to the police, and followed-up months later. Found out the police did nothing....too small time to worry about....and the SS officials thus confronted by Stossel, defended the druggie and their handling of his case, saying he was disabled and needed taxpayer assistance.
So, those of you hoping for any real change to SS, or any other gov-mint program, forget it. Do yourself a favor and don't think about it...
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/10/...ng-gold-again/
Just more evidence that Keynesian manipulation doesn't work.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
