Pathetic

[AZGrizFan]

Two pictures. When I think about the people who built the country, I think of images like this:



As I contemplate the current debate over restructuring Medicare and look at videos of disgusting people upset about possibiliy seeing some diminishment in an entitlement program, I think of this:



That, to me, is a metaphor for what a critical mass of the United States population has come to. Parasites.

I hesitated to open this, St. Wronge, because it was a St. Wronge post. But, curiosity compelled me and I discovered that it's just another warped St. Wronge post.

If you look real close you can see you AND your brother there, in that dog's ear.

[JohnStOnge]

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

I reject the premise that someone should pay less for something because they don't have as much disposable income. When I go to a movie, they don't check my income then decide on how much I'm going to pay based on how much I make then charge some other person more because that person makes more. We both pay what it costs to go to the movie. And the "moral" thing to do would be to charge everybody the same thing for the cost of running the country. It may not be practically possible but it is the "moral" ideal.

A side benefit would be that if the majority of the people of this country had to pay closser to an even share of what it costs to sustain government we'd be spending a whole lot less on government because people would not tolerate the cost.

Either that or we ought to pro-rate the vote or something so that people who pay more towards what it costs get more say. Right now we have a situation where hundreds of millions of people support a bunch of spending they don't have to contribute much to. If one person pays $100,000 in Federal taxes while another person pays $500 the one that pays $100,000 ought to have a whole lot more say with respect to who is in office, etc. than the one that pays $500 does. Something simple like one vote counting for 100,000 points while the other counts for 500 points toward whoever they vote for.

That'll never happen but it'd be the right thing to do if we're going to insist on making a small percentage of the population carry the load. Right now what we've got is a tyranny of the majority where most of the population functions as a bunch of parasites living off a relatively small population of successful individuals.

[kalm]

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

I reject the premise that someone should pay less for something because they don't have as much disposable income. When I go to a movie, they don't check my income then decide on how much I'm going to pay based on how much I make then charge some other person more because that person makes more. We both pay what it costs to go to the movie. And the "moral" thing to do would be to charge everybody the same thing for the cost of running the country. It may not be practically possible but it is the "moral" ideal.

A side benefit would be that if the majority of the people of this country had to pay closser to an even share of what it costs to sustain government we'd be spending a whole lot less on government because people would not tolerate the cost.

Either that or we ought to pro-rate the vote or something so that people who pay more towards what it costs get more say. Right now we have a situation where hundreds of millions of people support a bunch of spending they don't have to contribute much to. If one person pays $100,000 in Federal taxes while another person pays $500 the one that pays $100,000 ought to have a whole lot more say with respect to who is in office, etc. than the one that pays $500 does. Something simple like one vote counting for 100,000 points while the other counts for 500 points toward whoever they vote for.

That'll never happen but it'd be the right thing to do if we're going to insist on making a small percentage of the population carry the load. Right now what we've got is a tyranny of the majority where most of the population functions as a bunch of parasites living off a relatively small population of successful individuals.

Yeah the working poor definitely doesn't deserve democracy. It should be reserved for the chosen few who by the grace of god and fortunate lineage have earned that right. Come on Walton family, throw off those tyrannical shackles and be free!

[BlueHen86]

When did the majority of the people demand a massive government?

That could be sarcasim on your part in answer to the question I'd say it started near the end of the 19th century and/or the beginning of the 20th century then really gained momentum with the onset of the Great Depression in 1929.

At some point we evolved from a poplulation largely composed of people willing to do things like cross oceans in primitive wooden ships and cross continents with almost nothing; taking tremendous risks with full knowledge that they could starve to death, die of disease, or be killed by native inhabitants to a population of people born thinking that the world owes them what they need.

I've yet to see a politician run for office with a promise to make government bigger. Usually they run with a promise to make government smaller, a promise that is never kept.

I think most people want a smaller governement, as long as their pet programs are not the ones being cut.

[BlueHen86]

I reject the premise that someone should pay less for something because they don't have as much disposable income. When I go to a movie, they don't check my income then decide on how much I'm going to pay based on how much I make then charge some other person more because that person makes more. We both pay what it costs to go to the movie. And the "moral" thing to do would be to charge everybody the same thing for the cost of running the country. It may not be practically possible but it is the "moral" ideal.

A side benefit would be that if the majority of the people of this country had to pay closser to an even share of what it costs to sustain government we'd be spending a whole lot less on government because people would not tolerate the cost.

Either that or we ought to pro-rate the vote or something so that people who pay more towards what it costs get more say. Right now we have a situation where hundreds of millions of people support a bunch of spending they don't have to contribute much to. If one person pays $100,000 in Federal taxes while another person pays $500 the one that pays $100,000 ought to have a whole lot more say with respect to who is in office, etc. than the one that pays $500 does. Something simple like one vote counting for 100,000 points while the other counts for 500 points toward whoever they vote for.
That'll never happen but it'd be the right thing to do if we're going to insist on making a small percentage of the population carry the load. Right now what we've got is a tyranny of the majority where most of the population functions as a bunch of parasites living off a relatively small population of successful individuals.

We already have that, they are called lobbyists. Even though my vote may count the same as everyone else's, the rich have a lot more say in how this country is run than I do.

[Gil Dobie]

I reject the premise that someone should pay less for something because they don't have as much disposable income. When I go to a movie, they don't check my income then decide on how much I'm going to pay based on how much I make then charge some other person more because that person makes more. We both pay what it costs to go to the movie. And the "moral" thing to do would be to charge everybody the same thing for the cost of running the country. It may not be practically possible but it is the "moral" ideal.

A side benefit would be that if the majority of the people of this country had to pay closser to an even share of what it costs to sustain government we'd be spending a whole lot less on government because people would not tolerate the cost.

Either that or we ought to pro-rate the vote or something so that people who pay more towards what it costs get more say. Right now we have a situation where hundreds of millions of people support a bunch of spending they don't have to contribute much to. If one person pays $100,000 in Federal taxes while another person pays $500 the one that pays $100,000 ought to have a whole lot more say with respect to who is in office, etc. than the one that pays $500 does. Something simple like one vote counting for 100,000 points while the other counts for 500 points toward whoever they vote for.
That'll never happen but it'd be the right thing to do if we're going to insist on making a small percentage of the population carry the load. Right now what we've got is a tyranny of the majority where most of the population functions as a bunch of parasites living off a relatively small population of successful individuals.

We already have that, they are called lobbyists. Even though my vote may count the same as everyone else's, the rich have a lot more say in how this country is run than I do.

.............and we elect a lot of the lobbyist in the guise Representatives and Senators.

[BlueHen86]

I hesitated to open this, St. Wronge, because it was a St. Wronge post. But, curiosity compelled me and I discovered that it's just another warped St. Wronge post.

When I saw the title I thought the thread might be autobiographical.

[JohnStOnge]

I think most people want a smaller governement, as long as their pet programs are not the ones being cut.

People may say they want "smaller government" in the abstract. But, as you say, they demonstrate that they don't really want that when talk about taking meaningful steps to make government "smaller" are attempted.

It's like the Tea Party people. They make all this noise about wanting government constrained to its originally intended Constitutional bounds. But ask them if they want Social Security and Medicare eliminated and the overwhelming majority of them will say, "no."

[CID1990]

Your point is?

Why don't you argue (in your own words) the lack of merit behind the idea that everyone paying 10% is somehow unfair? Maybe develop an opinion based on something other than the 6x5 foot world inside your bubble?

How many poor in America are actually spending the majority of their incomes actually getting food? I see some pretty poor folks down at the Piggly Wiggly buying Ho Hos and collard greens in bulk. Hell, do you even KNOW any "poor" people in America? Most of the "poor" people I know have bigger television sets and nicer cars than I ever had.

Actually, nevermind. I am through acknowledging retards. Just forget it.

And you whine about hyperbole in others....


BTW, any poor person buying collard greens in bulk, assuming this isn't just more of your hyperbole, is to be commended, collards are even healthier than spinach.

You're right. Collards are very nutritious. I was being facetious.

My point is that suggesting that we somehow have "poor" people in America (or in any other Western country) is an insult to the truly poor people who do exist. A poor person in America is a robber baron compared to one in Nigeria, Haiti, or even Vietnam.

If you are hungry in America, it is totally self-inflicted.

[expandspanos]

there is also really no need for poor people in a country as rich in resources as ours is-

Give people a plot of land to farm, give them some dignity- America was made great because people were given opportunities- now it is so hard to get started doing anything it sticks people in a perpetual state of non-advancement.

The divide between the haves and have nots had reached the point where nothing short of a revolution against the entrenched banking/ corporate strangehold will right the sinking ship.

Could you imagine if just 1/5 of the military bases in this country were converted to help house the homeless and have them farm on the remaining land?

[BlueHen86]

I think most people want a smaller governement, as long as their pet programs are not the ones being cut.

People may say they want "smaller government" in the abstract. But, as you say, they demonstrate that they don't really want that when talk about taking meaningful steps to make government "smaller" are attempted.

It's like the Tea Party people. They make all this noise about wanting government constrained to its originally intended Constitutional bounds. But ask them if they want Social Security and Medicare eliminated and the overwhelming majority of them will say, "no."

I agree. But that is not what you originally said. It's one thing to tacitly approve of bigger government, it's another thing to demand it, which is what you claimed people demanded.

I am not aware of anyone who has demanded bigger government.

[citdog]

I think most people want a smaller governement, as long as their pet programs are not the ones being cut.

People may say they want "smaller government" in the abstract. But, as you say, they demonstrate that they don't really want that when talk about taking meaningful steps to make government "smaller" are attempted.

It's like the Tea Party people. They make all this noise about wanting government constrained to its originally intended Constitutional bounds. But ask them if they want Social Security and Medicare eliminated and the overwhelming majority of them will say, "no."

some of us felt so strongly about it we were willing to sacrifice the best of an entire generation in the attempt