Did the presidential debates change anyone's mind?

[eameece]

:rotfl: That's rich. So the law is what defines what is just and moral huh? And one should go to jail? Well, then we will just use your hard earned money to feed me three times a day, bed to sleep in, lifting weights, even watch some tv. Sounds good.

Yes. I pay my taxes willingly to support programs for people in need, and I support private charity too. If I support people in need, then I too will be supported if I need it. I certainly don't resent it if they have some weights to lift. If they are fit, they will be able to go out and work again soon.

 

[eameece]

Do you really believe paying taxes to Ceaser in those days meant that Ceaser was helping the poor? You are a idiot of the worst sort.

I am not an expert on the roman government, but another poster here said that they had a corn dole. You are the idiot, as is proven by the fact that you can't spell Caesar! :ha:

Your willingness to take from someone something that doesn't belong to you is what is immoral sir.

Taxes are not theft. They are not "me" doing anything to you. That nonsense is what is immoral, sir. That money belongs to Caesar, and if you don't pay it you are a criminal. Sir.

 

[PureX]

In my opinion, you're being obtuse when you ask that. You should know that there's no way that I (one person) can house that many people.

I know many people who, despite barely making it between paydays, bring people who are worse off financially than they are into their homes, or donate food and/or clothing to shelters, or donate their time to shelters, schools, churches, and other organizations.

Sure, but what you can't possibly know is that everyone who needs to be cared for, is actually being cared for, after all those programs are discontinued.

I believe that you would help as many as you can. But we both know there are far more people who need help than you could possibly help. And even though some other people will help, we still can't possibly know that it's enough.

The whole reason that we created a system of public aid is because not having such a system WASN'T WORKING. Too many people were not getting the help they needed, and were suffering greatly, and even dying, as a result.

That was my point in making that comment: "All fifty million of them?!?"

I get tired of hearing "how bad" a person I am because I think I could do more to help people if I didn't have to pay so much in taxes.

I am sure that you could do more. But that doesn't solve the problem. And in fact it makes the problem much worse, because you are advocating for the end of those programs that a lot of people NEED TO LIVE.

My mother is 82 years old, and lives exclusively on the minimum social security allotment, food stamps, and Medicare. She also gets some help with home heating, or she would literally end up freezing to death in the winter because the cost of natural gas, electricity and oil are all so high.

Those programs that you don't want to pay for are keeping her alive. When Romney and Ryan cut them, she will have nothing. And she does not want to come live in your home and eat your food and let you doctor her any more than you actually want her there. So I think it's time we get real about this, and stop crying about having to pay our taxes.

I don't have much respect for anyone who refuses to work to support their family.

No one does. But the republicans, and FOX, and the tea party can't seem to imagine that there is ANYONE else on welfare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, or any other government program that ISN'T some lazy, criminal, dope-addicted teen slut bilking the system and laughing at us as they steal our paychecks each week. When the truth is that Exxon steals more money from you through government handouts every single day of your life than a thousand teen sluts on welfare ever could.

But no matter how many times this is pointed out to republicans and their supporters, they NEVER seem to hear it. Never.

 

[drbrumley]

I am not an expert on the roman government, but another poster here said that they had a corn dole. You are the idiot, as is proven by the fact that you can't spell Caesar! :ha:

Oh wow, he got me on that one. NOT!!!!

Taxes are not theft. They are not "me" doing anything to you. That nonsense is what is immoral, sir. That money belongs to Caesar, and if you don't pay it you are a criminal. Sir.

"That" money? What money are you referring too? Your saying the dollar in my pocket is Caeser"s?

How about this, define theft for us eameece? What constitutes the act of thievery?

Remember don't steal, the government hates competition.

 

[drbrumley]

Yes. I pay my taxes willingly to support programs for people in need, and I support private charity too. If I support people in need, then I too will be supported if I need it. I certainly don't resent it if they have some weights to lift. If they are fit, they will be able to go out and work again soon.

Again, you like the system. If you believe people are in need and worthy of your support, how about you do the noble thing and freely give your support without having to force the guy next to you to do the same. Maybe he doesn't agree? What then? Your answer, too freaking bad? Seems that is what you believe.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Administrators of social programs are not in favor of sniveling parasites either. That a few people abuse a program or are lazy does not mean we should abolish or cut back the scanty social insurance that we have that protects us all against things like great recessions.

In every nation that practiced socialism for a while, everyone became "lazy".

What is the definition of insanity? To keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Liberals are insane.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

In every nation that practiced socialism for a while, everyone became "lazy".

What is the definition of insanity? To keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Liberals are insane.

I don't know, I'm too tired to look it up. I'll do it tomorrow, or the next day.

 

[eameece]

"That" money? What money are you referring too? Your saying the dollar in my pocket is Caeser"s?

How about this, define theft for us eameece? What constitutes the act of thievery?

Remember don't steal, the government hates competition.

Well, it would be nice if the government did its job and made sure there WAS more competition! That's what anti-trust laws are for. We should use them. But the right-wing free-enterprise philosophy has squelched that one!

Render to Caesar what is Caesar's. That means, whatever portion of the money in your "pocket" that the government decides is theirs, is theirs, buddy! It is not theft, it is the law. If you disobey the law, you undermine the state, and you are a criminal. Luckily we have taxation with representation, so you and we the people have a say on how much of our money belongs to Caesar. But if you always vote against taxes on the basis that taxes are theft, well that is your right, but you are not recognizing that government is necessary.

Go ahead and argue for anarchy, but the facts show it doesn't work. Abolish the police and see what happens in your community. The LA riots of 1992 might give you a clue. It won't be good for business!

 

[eameece]

In every nation that practiced socialism for a while, everyone became "lazy".

What is the definition of insanity? To keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Liberals are insane.

No, conservatives are. Trickle-down economics does not work and never did, and yet you keep voting for it.

A mixed economy is best.

 

[eameece]

Again, you like the system. If you believe people are in need and worthy of your support, how about you do the noble thing and freely give your support without having to force the guy next to you to do the same. Maybe he doesn't agree? What then? Your answer, too freaking bad? Seems that is what you believe.

You got it. Too freaking bad. We are not a nation or world of isolated individuals. We are all in this life together. I like the system, because having a system is better than no system. Again, anarchy does not work. Could the system be better? You betcha!

 

[drbrumley]

You got it. Too freaking bad. We are not a nation or world of isolated individuals. We are all in this life together. I like the system, because having a system is better than no system. Again, anarchy does not work. Could the system be better? You betcha!

That's what I thought....And that's why I will continue to argue and fight stupid people like you. Unfortunately for me, there are more of you. You cannot understand simple concepts. It's ok to steal from someone as long as the law is on your side is your view. For the greater good so called. And who said anything about anarchy?

Got this off Facebook from a Mr. Stout, answers your evil quite nicely. "If you or I as individuals don't have the right to steal someone's money, then how could we collectively, as a 'government', have the right to steal someone's money? The answer is that we don't. If you don't have the right to do something, then it's irrational to think you can transfer that right to another person or group. Taxation is theft and theft is unethical."



Typical eameece, can't think past his/her "I wants."

 

[drbrumley]

We are not a nation or world of isolated individuals.

Why do you hate individuals so much?

 

[drbrumley]

Render to Caesar what is Caesar's. That means, whatever portion of the money in your "pocket" that the government decides is theirs, is theirs, buddy!

Is that what Jesus' means, Caeser's portion? I'm fast coming to the conclusion your still in Middle School. Because that is an outrageous claim.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Your above posts show it. You don't want us to have the social insurance that we need. You want to pay less taxes by cutting these programs. If you agitate to pay less taxes, it's because you don't want to pay them. That is being "unwilling." That is the Republican policy that you support with your votes.

Liar, i didnt say a thing you are attributing to me. Bammy lies a lot too, is that an extreme liberal trait now'?

 

[WizardofOz]

That a few people abuse a program or are lazy does not mean we should abolish or cut back the scanty social insurance that we have that protects us all against things like great recessions.

Idealism vs realism. Tell me, what would be a good reason for abolishing or cutting back?

Idealism says we must protect the less fortunate with social programs. This is a noble ideal.

Realism says cuts must be made because we are broke. If you believe that we can allow the fed to keep printing money endlessly to fund spending I will beg to differ.

We are taxed and the wealth is redistributed. Worse, we are taxed through predatory inflation practices that diminish the purchasing power of each and every dollar the lucky few are fortunate enough to save and the rest of us spend.

If a dollar taxed cannot be a dollar redistributed (it cannot possibly be), you must admit that we are faced with a certain degree of inefficiency. Any increase in bureaucracy can only lead to an increase in inefficiency.

Of course, cuts can be made outside of social programs.

Do you agree or disagree that spending must be cut?

 

[eameece]

That's what I thought....And that's why I will continue to argue and fight stupid people like you. Unfortunately for me, there are more of you. You cannot understand simple concepts. It's ok to steal from someone as long as the law is on your side is your view. For the greater good so called. And who said anything about anarchy?

You did. The government cannot function without taxes.

Got this off Facebook from a Mr. Stout, answers your evil quite nicely. "If you or I as individuals don't have the right to steal someone's money, then how could we collectively, as a 'government', have the right to steal someone's money? The answer is that we don't. If you don't have the right to do something, then it's irrational to think you can transfer that right to another person or group. Taxation is theft and theft is unethical."

A collective decision is not stealing. Again, we are not just individuals.
Contributing to the common good is not being stolen from. It would be nice if we could do it all voluntarily; maybe someday, but right now that's a false utopian dream. Today, rejecting taxes to help the poor just means they don't get helped, and nothing else the government does, gets done.

Typical eameece, can't think past his/her "I wants."

We're talking needs here. And if others are in need, I am also.

 

[eameece]

Why do you hate individuals so much?

Why do you ask stupid questions?

 

[eameece]

Liar, i didnt say a thing you are attributing to me. Bammy lies a lot too, is that an extreme liberal trait now'?

Bammy is not an "extreme liberal," so I dunno. All I did was mentioned what you had said. Do you deny you are against taxes to pay for helping the poor?

 

[bybee]

Bammy is not an "extreme liberal," so I dunno. All I did was mentioned what you had said. Do you deny you are against taxes to pay for helping the poor?

She does not deny that you Cretin! To be concerned over the distribution of help doesn't mean one is against helping the poor!

 

[eameece]

Idealism vs realism. Tell me, what would be a good reason for abolishing or cutting back?

Idealism says we must protect the less fortunate with social programs. This is a noble ideal.

Realism says cuts must be made because we are broke. If you believe that we can allow the fed to keep printing money endlessly to fund spending I will beg to differ.

We are taxed and the wealth is redistributed. Worse, we are taxed through predatory inflation practices that diminish the purchasing power of each and every dollar the lucky few are fortunate enough to save and the rest of us spend.

If a dollar taxed cannot be a dollar redistributed (it cannot possibly be), you must admit that we are faced with a certain degree of inefficiency. Any increase in bureaucracy can only lead to an increase in inefficiency.

Of course, cuts can be made outside of social programs.

Do you agree or disagree that spending must be cut?

That's a good question. I think the need to cut spending was dictated to us by the Reaganoids and conservatives, who used the supply-side economics policy to cause a huge debt in order to "starve the beast." So I think they should be circumvented, by spending for social programs and other things we really need as fully as ever.

However, Democrats have shown that bureaucracy can be made more efficient. If programs are pork that don't really work, but only benefit politicians, they should be cut. Earmarks should be banned. Many subsidies exist that should be cut. Corporate welfare should be cut. Defense spending should be cut, and the wars ended. So yes, spending should be cut where it makes sense to do so, and the budget should be balanced if possible.

We can't print (or keystroke) money endlessly. Right now that is not a big issue because inflation is low. I don't know if QE3 will work, because it is channeled too much through the banks. Fiscal stimulus is needed now. There is no need to cut social security, because the fund is solvent and too much has been stolen from it. Medicare should be extended to all, with everyone paying in, and costs of health care and drugs should be reduced.

Taxes need to be restored to the Clinton levels for everyone. That worked great and reduced the debt. Bush ruined our federal finances. But the people should not pay for he and his friends having deliberately made us broke. As Jesse Jackson once said, they should pay for the party. So there should be even more taxes on the wealthy.