why should I pay for anything *you* get?

[ulysses]

In the education forum, someone asked recently (to the accompaniment of pretty cartoons) why they should pay for my child's education.

One should be gentle with libertarians, I reminded myself, for they don't know shit from shinola. Still, it brought to mind the fact that this is Poverty in America Awareness Month. These are, of course, closely linked ideas: educate all, provide for all.

The answer, of course, is that you should bear your part of the burden of educating all of our children ("I'm paying for your kid's education!" being nothing but useless rightwing boilerplate) because you don't want to find yourself, in your fucking dotage, living in a fucking developing nation in which you have to scrounge for your next meal because no one else around you has the goddamned wherewithal to feed your old ass.

And yet, there are those who do scrounge. Right here.

Why *should* I pay for anything you get?

Because it's the human goddamned thing to do. Because it's fucking stupid not to do so. That's why.

I can't pretend to some ascetic perfection. I live in a comfortable home. What I spend on books could feed and educate a couple of folks anyway.

I'm ok, as are my wife and son, and I work hard. Why should I pay for anything *you* get?

Because I'm not a fucking idiot. I don't have to be a bleeding heart liberal to understand that it's in my own best interest to not have my fellows hungry or homeless. Or uneducated.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

1. Because it makes sense.

These services produce better workers who in turn will create a better society (at least in theory). Taxes are the dues we pay to belong to a society.

Right on with your post.

[Orrex]

3. Libertarians like to pretend that there's no such thing as 'society'

Without that assumption, almost all of their arguments become altogether baseless. Hell, even with that assumption their arguments are close to nonsensical.

For one thing, if it's true, then what language are they speaking?

[Quantess]

12. Libertarians would do well as anarchists.

Even better, libertarians would feel right at home in a Mad Max movie, toothless, wearing leather rags and firing homemade weapons, stealing gasoline for their frankenstein muscle cars.


(Max Max: Mel Gibson films from the 1980s, in case you are too young to remember)

[Orrex]

16. Too young? That's so sweet! I'm old enough to remember having to get up to change the channel!

Libertarians have this mad belief that, out of that toothless wasteland would spring their shining Libertopia.

I've never understood just how they think they'll get from A to B, though...

[Quantess]

32. Oops, that "too young to remember" part was for anyone who is reading,

not directed to "you" specifically, Orrex. :hi:
I need to be more careful with the wording.

But yes, libertarians might enjoy the wild west, where there are no laws, and it's every man for himself, even if that means knifing the next guy when he's asleep at the campfire.

[tblue37]

115. Remember when we had to wait for the TV to come on, and then

when we turned it off, it didn't go off right away, but shrunk to a tiny white dot on the screen first?

And remember when it was just in black and white?

Yep--I remember that stuff, too.

[annabanana]

123. yeah.. and there were horizontal & vertical controls on the front...

My kids watched The Outer Limits and had no idea what they were talking about. . . "WE control the horizontal, WE control the vertical". . . lol

[Orrex]

124. Remember when the channel-select knob would break?

Bring on the needle-nose pliers!

[tblue37]

126. OMG--Yes!!! Talk about memory lane! nt

[Solomon]

167. Not to mention the double-images.

And there were only three regular channels and one UHF channel. LOL

[Doremus]

200. LOL! Your remark sparked another childhood memory of mine.

The TV tube was on its way out and the picture was very faint. To see the picture my brother and I took a blanket, wrapped it over the top of the TV and ourselves to block out the room light. It worked fine until the damned encyclopedias holding the blanket up fell on our heads. Ouch!

Thanks for the chuckle! :)

[undergroundpanther]

210. I remember UHF

It was winter and it was cold as shit so after school I stayed inside.We had a clip on the back of the TV that led to the antenna on the roof that ran down the side of the house on a wire that switched the tv from UHF to VHF. The TV was one of those colonial styled console sets.One day after school I was watching cartoons and the clip fell off the back making the already rather crappy picture turn to snow.(anyone from Maryland remember Captain Chesapeake? Cheese!!) So,I got up to clip it back on and suddenly I saw FLAMES inside the TV through the holes in the pasteboard panel on the backside..and a horrible smell filled the living room. I got my older sister and her boy friend's attention by yelling The TV's on fire! over and over. They ran into the living room saw I was not lying and we all picked it up hauled it out into our front yard, it was the nearest exit and we sat it down and put the flames out with handfuls of snow. The stench of the Burned TV and melted plastic and ozone stayed in the house for a week.Ugh.

[snot]

28. or solepsists.

[Naturyl]

100. They ARE anarchists.

They just don't have the guts to admit it, and they have the hypocrisy to want to keep certain government services (ie police) to protect them from the rest of the knuckle-dragging imbeciles.

[treestar]

108. They are also OK with the military

It's all to protect their property, you see. That's all government is for, they say.

They assume they only reason they aren't rich is because of government regulation. Gee, what were they going to do that would make them all that money?

[Naturyl]

111. They have self-aggrandizing Horatio Alger fantasies.

In their own narcissistic minds, they are inherently strong, competent, and infinitely capable. And yet, for some reason, they aren't billionaires yet. Logically enough (given their delusional premises), they conclude that some outside oppression must be keeping them down. If only the "undeserving" of society would stop picking their pockets, they would be set free to achieve their materialistic goals.

This is what "freedom" means to them.

[undergroundpanther]

189. NO they are NOT ANARCHISTS

THEY are for LAWLESSNESS which is NOT anarchy!!

Anarchy requires one to have an ethical standard,to empathize with others and cooperate together,and share. Libertarians are against this.
See WHY Libertarians are NOT anarchists here:

LIBERTARIANS BOGUS ANARCHISTS
http://www.spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp000713.txt
More
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between.html

And anarchists have ETHICS!! Libertarians do NOT!!
http://a4a.mahost.org/moral.html
Please don't lump the anarchists with the jackass libertarians.

[tabasco]

197. They'd be the first ones squealing for help.

That's been my experience.

[Naturyl]

213. Yep, and their rationale would be:

"Since we have a state, might as well hold our noses and take advantage of it."

[mopinko]

90. libertarianism is a fine intellectual exercise

it just doesn't actually work in the real world. i think they should be barred from holding any sort of office. i mean, by definition, they don't know what they are doing.

[nxylas]

97. If only

I'd love for libertarians to be barred from important offices like, say, governor of my home state (South Carolina).

[AndrewP]

131. Libertarians are full of crap

[MajorChode]

19. More than better workers, they become better citizens

Furthermore it's not just the libertarians that have these wacko ideas. Many on the right are still pushing for universal school vouchers. It's like saying that since you never visit the public library, you should be entitled to get a voucher so you can go by Waldenbooks and stock your own personal library.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. I try to explain to people...

Welfare workers, social service people and others like them are farther out in front of dealing with the maintenance of a civil society than cops and courts. They stare their usual blank stare, as the wind whistles through their ears.

[ulysses]

4. it's so easy to believe

that civil society is a simple matter of crime and punishment.

[Idealism]

5. "I like taxes, with them I buy civilization" n/t

[CoffeeCat]

6. Maybe as materialism...

...and behaving like superficial cads goes out of style--becoming a more giving, compassionate human
being will be in style.

I'd like to think so. I'm damn well done with Paris Hilton and everyone salivating over their new material
possessions. It's time we all looked beyond the end of our own noses and made time in our hearts for others
who are suffering, in need or just deserving of support.

[Naturyl]

101. Don't hold your breath.

Materialistic values are manufactured and promoted *aggressively* by the ruling class which benefits from them.

They aren't going to stop doing it voluntarily.

[JeffR]

7. Just checked into DU and saw this first

and I have to say: Bravo!

While most on the left long ago recognized the neocon agenda for the treason it is, some still stubbornly cling to the untenable rugged pseudo-individualist libertarian notion that we don't live in a collective society. The health of society ultimately depends much more on what we do for each other than what we do for ourselves as individuals. Libertarians are slow learners, I guess, in some contrast to Republicans, who have never learned a single goddamned thing.

[ulysses]

13. and thank you

for your efforts with all this. :thumbsup:

[DaveJ]

8. Obviously you're preaching to the choir

So I'll play a little devil's advocate, in moderation of course.

These people may not feel that they are befitting from these social programs, if they don't have kids, and they are not living a comfortable life like you are. They are bound to feel a little resentment when their work is completely unrewarded, and know others who refuse to work or get an education, yet live just as well.

Of course I support social programs but I absolutely think there should be more that directly benefit working class people.

[Incitatus]

9. "and know others who refuse to work or get an education"

That does seem to be their misconception.

They believe the only reason people are poor is because they are lazy.

[demodonkey]

10. Sometimes it's good to have Choir Practice.

There's plenty of so-called "progressives" out there who have a real problem with helping those in need in OUR COUNTRY. Sometimes it seems it's OK if we help the teeming masses in some third world nation... but look at the state of our healthcare and other problems and we ARE that third-world nation. Except for those who have; for them it's me me me, mine mine mine!

[ulysses]

11. wish I was preaching to the choir.

The challenge is welcomed, though. :) I'd like to know how many of those who aren't benefiting from these social programs know who pays for their retirement. (Hint: it's other people's kids, whose educations they've funded.) As to your second point - I've heard for a long time about these legions who refuse to work, but in forty years I've known very few, and most of them had mental health problems. Short of shooting those with mental health problems, I'm not sure what they'd have us do.

but I absolutely think there should be more that directly benefit working class people.

No argument here.

[DaveJ]

17. No argument from me, but one more challenge...

Would it be okay if everyone has all the same stuff you have, paid for by the government? I know this may be a tangential, but this is how THEY see it. Plus it's a legitimate question I have... CAN I have all the same stuff you have?? It would make me happy and probably improve the economy also.....

Yeah, I know a lot of people who are drains on the economy. One refuses to get her GED, the rest use drugs and will do anything they can to get public aid. They are all related so I'm not sure if it is a mental illness, just their OP. But as you say, what else can we do. Everyone needs a roof over their heads and food. I guess we tried putting them in government projects but that didn't work so well. So, you are right about that, but I understand their feelings.

[ulysses]

20. everyone with a library like mine, from the government? shit, I'd have people I could talk to.

Yes, that would be just fine with me.

[sandnsea]

18. I am a working class person

In my lifetime I have directly benefited from the following:

Paved highways and interstate
Public education
Immunizations
Public library
Public pool
Public parks
Police protection
Fire protection
The Emergency Broadcasting System
Hurricane and Tornado warnings
Weather alerts
Flood control on rivers
Irrigation on rivers to grow food
Electricity from the dams
Recreation on the lakes
Camping in the campgrounds
The beauty of the National Parks
Rural telephone
Pell Grants
Student loans

And that's just off the top of my head. NOBODY is paying for things that they don't use.

[DaveJ]

27. Well I think some people do pay for things they don't use

Perhaps the tax system should be based on what they use. People could be given sort of a Federal and State invoice at the end of every year. That would not have been practical until now with high end computers. It's totally doable now. For instance those with more kids pay more for public ed, those who have been helped with hurricane relief pay more for that, those who have been helped out in a forest fire pay for that, etc.

I understand people benefit indirectly from things, but people prefer to pay for things that they directly get. I think this solution might help social programs gain more traction. It also might prevent people from using programs they don't really need.

I'm just trying to help. I support all of them, but we also need to win over the cynics. Again, I know we should all be happy to help one another, but most people are selfish. If we had this sort of invoicing system, the same thing would be accomplished but also silence some of the resistance.

[ulysses]

29. if programs are paid for only by those who use them,

who pays for programs that help those who can't pay?

[DaveJ]

36. If they are low income they don't pay taxes, just like now

I like my idea, I mean everyone would still pay about the same amount, they just would see where their money is going.

There might be another tier which encompasses broader programs like researching diseases, which would be the same level as the war budget. As far as health care, if someone decides to use their own insurance then they should not see a health care tax. However it's done, the government should get about the same amount of money in the end, it just needs to be presented in such a way that appears more favorable.

I think this is worth doing to help appease the more selfish people, who will always make up just over 50% of the population, technically.

[Two Americas]

109. 12% - not 50%

About 12% of the population is motivated by a lust for wealth and domination over others. We pander to, cater to, admire and lionize, defend and support those few, and the entire society is now organized for their convenience. We are paying a terrible price in human misery from that.

We all benefit from all of the programs, and it is foolish to think otherwise. For example, business owners benefit from having an educated labor pool, whether they have kids or not.

Many vital social contributions do not work well in the "free market" commercialized setting - teachers, nurses, elder care workers, farmers and many others. In fact, the more important the contribution, the less well it does on the "free market."

Why would you advocate caving in to the ignorance, rather than aggressively and clearly speaking out about this?

Trying to make things appear more favorable to people individually - appealing to their selfishness - is to reinforce and promote the ethic of selfishness.

[DaveJ]

39. Oh, I fogot to mention

They have to keep track of what people received in the past. So if people could not afford to pay when they received it they'll have to pay later. A lot of people who used to collect public aid go on to make big bucks. But, if that's still not enough, I guess there will have to be sort of a general fund that people will have to pay into, but it's only fair to put that on an invoice so people can see it. Changes are the amount will look petty compared to everything else.

[Hannah Bell]

183. every damn thing you have came from others.

yes, let's "track" where every tax dollar goes, & who gets it. i have no objections, so long as the "tracking" includes the dollars to, e.g. subsidized college tuition for the midddle classes, corporate subsidies (massive), real estate & construction subsidies (massive), subsididies for everyone who works in health care (massive) & the like.

Subsidies to the poor are a drop in the bucket, literally.

Every damn thing you have came from others.

[bobbolink]

186. BRAVA!

:applause:

[sandnsea]

42. I'd love to stop paying for war

prisons, border patrol, about half the court system, the DEA, I could go on for a long time. It just doesn't work that way. Libertarians just need to grow up.

[JDPriestly]

48. How many pages do you think it would take for you to

create a tax form that would allow for taxation based on usage.

You go to your doctor. Did you know that your doctor probably receives newsletters and other information about the state of public health in your area? That newsletter alerts your doctor to epidemiological information he or she needs in assessing your health needs. How much is that letter worth to you? It depends, but probably a lot more than you might think.

Then there are the agencies that inspect restaurants and food and clean streets and ticket people who park for hours and hours in prime parking locations and on and on. The government services that we use every day without even thinking about it are so many that it would be impossible to enumerate them on a tax form. You breathe the air. Some government employee is monitoring that air to make sure it is at least minimally safe. You drink the water. Same thing. Your life would be miserable were it not for the government.

Read about how sewage was disposed of at the time of Louis the XIV in France -- same in other European countries. Or go to a third world country in which the sewage is sent to open sewers. You will be thankful for the honor of paying taxes after just a couple of whiffs, I assure you.

[JDPriestly]

44. Those who have no children should be more concerned about

educating all children well than those who have their own children and are comfortable enough to educate those children.

It's the single person who makes a modest amount of money who will have to depend on Social Security and his or her investments in the stock market (or something else) who will be most dependent on the children of others to provide for his or her well-being in his or her old age. If you are lucky enough to have children, your children may be able to help you when you are older. (That is how older people lived before Social Security.) But if you aren't, your income will be determined by how well society as a whole, that is the working part of society, is doing. Even if you save your money, you will get whatever is left over after the young who work have been given their share in exchange for their work. You want the young who are working to be as productive as possible. The more education the general public has, the more productive the society is likely to be. Education is not the only factor, but it is an important factor, in determining productivity.

[varelse]

89. Publically funded education directly benefits everyone living in this society

It benefits employers, it benefits our national security, and it directly benefits us as citizens. Most "working class people" were educated at taxpayer expense, for the benefit of all taxpayers.

[Festivito]

14. Because we were all once very young, and hope someday ...

to be very old, even if we NEVER EVER EVER become sick.

Do you have health insurance? YES. Then I guess you'd include sick.

You depended on others and will depend on others and others will depend on you.

[drmeow]

15. Why should you pay for the eduction of my children

Because my parents and grandparents (and childfree aunts and uncles) paid for YOURS!
Because without public eduction, you won't have any skilled workers for your f**king small business which you do not want taxed or regulated!
Because uneducated people usually don't make a lot of money and can't buy the worthless CRAP your unregulated company makes!

[Lex]

21. I think it was Jesus who first said, "Why should I pay for anything *you* get?"

Wait. No. I'm getting that mixed up.

[ulysses]

24. that's Prosperity Jesus.

Get it right.

[liberalpress]

86. Wow. You know that's a great

Theological question to ask Libertarian Christians. I'd love to to hear their answer:

"What if Jesus had said 'Why should *I* pay for anything you get?'"

If they really believe what they say, then they dismiss the theory that Jesus paid the price for all our sins.

Libertarians, if they hold to their ideology, can't be Christians.

[Naturyl]

102. Indeed. They are the opposite of authentic Christians.

Then again, so are a huge number of church attendees in general, so it's kind of an uphill climb.

[bobbolink]

205. ohhhh, you'll blow all their fuses!

Really, that's a fine comeback.

But, they're likely to really strike out.....cover your head immediately, and duck!

[bobbolink]

218. loved your response...

"I think it was Jesus who first said, "Why should I pay for anything *you* get?"
EXCELLENT!

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Because you like me

:evilgrin:

[ulysses]

23. it's true!

:loveya:

[1]

25. blerg... i think the real question is... "if i am paying for this education...

why can't i control it?"

there is the rub...

[Trekologer]

81. You do, either directly or indirectly

Directly through school board elections (including voting for or against the budget) if your area has them. Indirectly through local government elections.

These two elections (school board and local government) traditionally have the lowest turnouts. So low that in some areas a handful of voters could swing the election the other way. There should be a rule: if you didn't participate you can't complain about it.

[undergroundpanther]

26. if you don't want to pay for what

others get, you are a selfish asshole.Because why on earth did humans even bother to form a society and learn to share and to negotiate if we didn't learn that together we all lived better.And we live better because we SHARED the fruits of all our labors together.


( As for"society" I'm not including any robber baron parasites or their descendants out there so deluded they believe they earned what they were born into,the kinds of parasites libertarians fawn over that ruin every culture they touch with their own insatiable greed..)

Drop that "libertarian individual" off isolated far away from any other people.
Let him profit from his own labors,all alone than. If he doesn't want to share,why should humanity share anything with him?
Stupid fucking libertarians,irritating children in adult suits they are.

[ulysses]

31. tell us how you really feel.

:D :thumbsup:

[undergroundpanther]

65. See Post #6

You'll like it..
:evilgrin:

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. "descendants out there so deluded they believe they earned what they were born into"

Does that include the Kennedys?

[Two Americas]

53. why would you say that?

Obviously, the Kennedy family has many members who are not so deluded that they believe they earned what they were born into, and who have dedicated their lives to public service and advocacy for the have-nots. So why would you say that?

[undergroundpanther]

55. The Kennedys

don't brag all day about how wonderful they are because of how rich they are do they? No..Do they fail to share and fight for the poor?No..
If they are really arrogant rich parasites they do deserve my hate, but as far as I know they aren't arrogant,and they do share some,and they do speak up for the rights of those with less.Wish it was LOUDER and had more teeth tho..

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raksha]

43. You just attacked one of the most creative thinkers on DU

for no reason whatsoever--at least none that I know about. Most regulars on forum this would disagree with you that undergroundpanther "contributes absolutely nothing to society." Unless of course you see all "contributions" as strictly monetary contributions, and determine people's worth in dollars. I'm sure you'd make a similar assessment of me if you knew anything about my circumstances.

That was really over the top. If you have some kind of a grudge you should have dealt with it via PM.

[1]

46. "You just attacked one of the most creative thinkers on DU" ???

ummm...

no i didn't.

i did not do that at all.



i have no need to defend myself. ball in your court, bud. try to find others that will support you in this ridiculous argument. good luck.

[Two Americas]

52. this is out of line

What are you denying?

That you didn't attack a poster?

Or that the other person is wrong when they say that they think undergroundpanther doesn't contribute anything?

Which is it? You cannot defend either, and now your are attacking a second DUer - unprovoked

These posts are cowardly and despicable.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raksha]

71. You didn't "disagree." That was a vicious unprovoked personal attack,

and now you're attacking everyone who calls you on it. There would be a lot more of us too, if it weren't so late and more people were online now. I've seen arguments that got out hand on this board, but saying "how fucking dare you" simply because someone *HAS* an opinion you think they have no right to have--presumably based on their financial status--is carrying free-floating hostility to a whole new level.

[undergroundpanther]

60. What do you expect from a libertarian

twit? Intelligence? Compassion? Nahh they are bitter little children and they prove it everyday with posts insulting other DU'ers and clamoring I am some kind of malingerer because I don't accept the libertarian stupidity.There are a few twits on here that know I get SSI and seek every opportunity to find a way to belittle me over it . I don't care what anyone thinks really..I'll post what I post.If they don't like it they can put me on ignore.But for some neurotic reason they CAN'T do that.


So.. Either a they wish they were superior to me but they aren't
or they are jealous of me for some reason I can't figure out..

I don't know of many people who'd be jealous of my life.I get 650 bucks a month .I have been in psych wards for a chunk of time,I cannot drive, I got Depression PSTD and nerves with the myelin sheaths being destroyed more each day,and bone spurs all over my spine,making my x-rays look like an alien's,including one huge spur that could if my throat swells too much from strep or whatever could cut into my esophagus and cause me to bleed and kill me in around 30 seconds..and the spurs also cause my arms to ache and my hands to drop things unexpectedly.So I take meds to try to cope with the emotional fallout of growing up in a very violent home and school and the abuses in the psych wards,to the spine damage I have and the pain that never stops. I still go out,and fight the fucking mental health boards and the state for psych survivor rights to be treated with dignity like other human beings get by default..

ooh my life is just too good for that asshole huh?

I am crazy and I am PROUD of my differences.But that does not mean I do not have a mind and know how to use it. Normal is a fantasy. It does not exist except in the minds of people who like to pretend they are elites.Those are the arrogant,and they are the only ones who scream about the importance of social rank and who deserves ..for without the who deserves who would they be? No one in particular...just like everybody else.

[Greyskye]

169. Libertarians are Republicans who like to get high

I've heard that description in the past, and it certainly fits with most of the self-proclaimed Libertarians that I've met over the years.

[bobbolink]

206. panther, NOBODY could do a better job with what you struggle with than YOU!

I cringe when I "hear" you detailing what you're living with.

I know I couldn't even BEGIN to manage!

Yet, you not only keep putting one foot in front of the other, but you stand up for others.

My hero! :patriot: :pals:

[undergroundpanther]

207. hugs for you bobbie You deserve them

over and over my freind,the stuff you do it is amazing too ya know.

[bobbolink]

217. panther....

:hug: :loveya: :hug:

[Terran]

107. I would guess that you *did*

since your post got deleted.

[bobbolink]

215. Thank you so much for standing up for undergroundpanther! But, one disagreement...

"If you have some kind of a grudge you should have dealt with it via PM."

COMPLETELY disagree! Please, remember, when people are attacked and bullied in private message, it hurts them and there is nobody, such as you, to at least put a salve and bandage on the wound! This way, others see that the attack isn't warranted, and the person attacked at least has support.

Being trashed without that concern coming from others can be devastating. Some of us know that devastation all too well.

[Two Americas]

51. unacceptable

This an unacceptable vicious personal attack.

Your post just contributed something to society - something ugly and hateful, and we are probbly just seeing the tip of the iceberg in regards to your contributions. I would say that undergroundpanther's contributions to society are infinitely greater and more valuable than yours are.

[undergroundpanther]

54. You KNOW NOTHING

About me,my life what I do with my time. Shut your pie hole until you know me.
Sure I get SSI I also have nasty nerve pain the kind that would send an arrogant twit like yourself crying to mommy.
Secondly I have PSTD. I have to take meds to keep myself asleep lest I wake up in cold sweats freaking out.

That does NOT negate my person hood.I don't get paid for what I do.

I was recently awarded a volunteer award from a peer run organization.
I am becoming a psych survivor rep for my county.

And you do not know what other things I do,and I do it NOT for the money,I do it because I care and my passion for true social justice and true compassion runs deeper than you can ever fathom.
I walk my talk.

AND..

The congress lives off the dole, they pay themselves PLENTY.And the health insurance they get I bet is way better than medicaid.


Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100

So how much do I make around $650 a month.

Can YOU live on that?

If not,STFU.Go tell a senator to not vote themselves a pay raise oops,they already DID.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Members-Congress-Due-Award-Themselves/story.aspx?guid={02CE0BA2-256E-4D38-BC83-D2E9697D32B9}

[1]

58. that deserves a huge whatever. i know exactly who you are up....

exactly...

[undergroundpanther]

61. who am I

Tell me... Go ahead tell me.

Nothing about me without me.

So if you lie I will call you on it.

So you THINK you know me.
Pony up asshole.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

85. I can't believe such a post on a liberal forum

It would shame Thatcher.

Do you think someone needs to be a 'unique case' to need help from society? It's precisely because those with illnesses, disabilities, restrictions of age (young or old), and other needs are NOT unique that we need a safety net for all.

If you don't die young, you'll live to be old. Do you think society should not support you in your old age?

Go back to the 1930s and vote for Hoover.

[Two Americas]

110. it is truly amazing

The Democrats just had a massive win, with the public utterly rejecting Reaganomics, the "free market" libertarian idiocy, and the religious right, and suddenly we have people acting as though it were the Left that were rejected, who see this as open season on the Left and on the suffering and the left behind. There is a vicious right wing mentality and authoritarianism among far too many "liberals" and "progressives" and it is surfacing in some very ugly ways now.

[undergroundpanther]

67. Waiting,you are proving that you know NOTHING..

To everyone...Lulz!!

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Naturyl]

105. Tombstoned.

I missed your attacks, but based on the context, I'm sure they were remarkably nasty. In fact, you were probably a troll who couldn't resist flushing a perfectly good stealth account down the toilet on a suicide run, lol. As an SSI recipient myself, I know it tends to have that effect on trolls. Any more of you troglodytes want to crawl our from under your rocks?

[Raksha]

113. The poster doesn't appear to have been tombstoned.

I just checked his/her profile. Probably got off with a warning this time.

[Naturyl]

212. Was tombstoned when I checked....

Must have been re-instated... which is bothersome.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

141. You go! Damn you are brilliant when riled up!

Not that I like seeing you riled up, but I sure do get the chills... and a lot of good vibes when you tell it like it is.

Social services of ALL kinds are such a tiny freaking amount compared to the greed and the waste. Some people just don't know how to spit out the Kool Aid when it force fed them.

:yourock:

[Raksha]

202. Especially when compared to the military budget--

so-called "defense" spending. What percentage of it actually gets used for defense? Talk about a WASTE!

Re Social services of ALL kinds are such a tiny freaking amount compared to the greed and the waste. Some people just don't know how to spit out the Kool Aid when it force fed them.

[undergroundpanther]

208. Remember $300.00 toilet seats?

You know that sort of shit still goes on..can you say Haliburton?

[Deja Q]

178. Right on!

:yourock:

Thank you for sharing and I hope things will work out better for you.

I can relate, personally, to a lot of what you'd said as well. (PTSD, nerve pain, etc, though I thank God every day I'm still able to work.)

You do deserve to get paid.

:hug:

[JDPriestly]

49. You are correct. Man is a social being because man is vulnerable

to all kinds of enemies from disease to pests to ferocious animals to starvation and to attacks from other humans. When we work together, we can provide for ourselves at a better level.

That kid who is getting the "free" education may be your doctor tomorrow. That kid who is getting the "free" education may invent something that makes it possible for you to have many things you don't have today. That is what I would say to some libertarian.

Benjamin Franklin was the great advocate of social betterment through people working together. He started the public library system. He started the first fire department in Pennsylvania. He supported a school that educated African-Americans -- and at the time of the American Revolution.

And Thomas Jefferson -- that great advocate for freedom and hero of many libertarians -- supported the University of Virginia and helped establish the idea of land grant universities in the area that was the Louisiana Purchase. So, may I add to your arguments, undergroundpanther, that a great reason for supporting public education is that it is a wonderfully American concept. Good Americans who love and respect our traditions as a country support public education. It's good for America. It's part of what we stand for.

The Founding Fathers preached against a standing army -- which libertarians believe in. The Founding Fathers, in various ways, supported education for all, which libertarians do not believe in. Shows you that libertarians are basically anti-American. At least that is my view.

[datasuspect]

84. libertarians are just gutless republicans

[Naturyl]

104. Yes. "Libertopia" consists of isolated one-man islands.

If you had two or more per island, it would be a society, and we wouldn't want THAT.

I'm all in favor of building "Libertopia" - somewhere far, far away from human civilization.

[starroute]

30. Because societies that hang together survive better than those that don't

Because altruism is such an important survival tool that it's wired into the brain's pleasure centers. Performing, or even thinking about performing, an altruistic act makes people feel good.

Because the answer to why H. sapiens sapiens took over the planet while the equally big-brained Neanderthals vanished is probably that Neanderthals were just content to live in their own little extended family groups and never got around, while sapiens were constantly holding swap meets with the folks in the next valley and sharing whatever they could spare.

Because every single fairy tale that gets beaten into us when we're kids makes the point that the youngest brother who stops to help any fox or field mouse or little old lady he meets along the way is going to end up with the princess and half the kingdom, while the older brothers who say "why should I do anything for you?" wind up eaten by dragons.

We know this stuff. We all know it. It's bred into our bones, and it takes an awful lot of willful ignorance to pretend that it isn't. So why should it even be a matter for argument?

[bvar22]

34. I live on a hill,...

...why should I pay for flood control?

[undergroundpanther]

62. Rising seas

from melting Arctic caps might just render that hill useless one day.
Than you will be glad you paid for those living lower on the land,because YOU could be helped when you need it too.Because those on the lower land will be PAYING for YOUR flood problems from the water that took out the hill.

[bvar22]

92. That's ANOTHER thing!

I live inland.
Why should I pay for the Coast Guard? :shrug:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(perhaps I should include the "sarcasm" tag?)

I also don't fly.
I shouldn't have to pay for the FAA either.

[EFerrari]

35. That kind of thinking is so foreign to me, I can't even respond to it.

lol

Libertarians always sound like teenagers on too much coffee to me. "What about ME, Mom?!"

[BlooInBloo]

37. (shrug) Fuck glibertarians. There's little point in talking to them.

[flvegan]

40. At the very least, Christ, it's fucking economics.

I have no kids. I pay into the tax rolls for education in my city AND my county. I'll never begrudge a child an education nor a teacher a proper salary.

Fact is, more I invest into this generation of social security payors, the more likely I actually get to collect when I'm old. That's the selfish response, believe it or not.

Otherwise, you know why you do it? Because it's the right damn thing to do. I know I got a benefit from it when I was a kid, and I'm happy to pay it forward.

[ashling]

41. A couple of quotes from JKG

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought.

John Kenneth Galbraith

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

[Naturyl]

106. Wonderful quotes, and so true.

Ayn Rand, heroine of libertarians, comes to mind...

[Fearless]

45. Here's the libertarian philosophy in a nut shell for those who think it's intelligent...

Libertarians are those who think that all of the government safety nets should be removed from society so that it can function on it's own. Likewise, a vast majority of libertarians are those who are not currently wealthy and believe that the government's taking of their money is unfairly keeping them down. They then believe that if all these safety nets are removed then they will rise up to success in spite of those who are already succeeding without the necessity of such safety nets and who are actively trying to push everyone down, those "libertarians" included.

In short... utter foolishness.

:eyes:

NTF
:kick:

[katusha]

47. Why does the firefighter risk his life for a house that isn't his?

Why does the soldier die for someone else's freedom?
Why will people jump into raging waters to save people they don't even know?


I don't think it's just about the bread.

[undergroundpanther]

66. Because they CARE

Because they can feel empathy and put themselves in someone else's shoes,even without the tragedy affecting their own life,they do it because they WANT to,because something inside says to do something to help them. So they help.

No other motive needed except compassion,passion and a desire to help.

[katusha]

68. exactly right

I think somebody once called people like that salt or something.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. If they are not willing to help pay for education... are they willing to help pay for prisons?

[busybl]

56. who paid for their schooling?

[Heidi]

59. I think we would _all_ benefit from having a well-educated populace.

I don't have kids, but I'm perfectly happy to pay my share for education, just as -- while I don't own a car -- I'm very happy to share the cost of well-maintained streets and highways.

[undergroundpanther]

63. Yeah I agree an educated populace

would cause a sharp reduction in those afflicted with the libertarian swagger...But than again, some people are fucking narcissists or sociopaths,and they'll always be whining or bullying over something,education can't fix a person with a toxic personality, neither can therapy..sad but true.

Here's one I wrote awhile ago pissed off the insecure libertarians too.

Libertarian Swagger

Libertarian, arrogant ,contrarian.
Full of himself.
Full of conflict.
Swaggers upon the scene
Uncooperative,heavy handed piss-poor additude.
A Penny pinching one-man band
He says he goes where freedom goes-
until he has to wipe his nose
,than it's everyone else's fault he got hurt.

Whiny little bully boy in a smart business suit
Fake patriot in a porn booth
jerking himself off in front of a mirror.
Defensive,clueless and,crass
A horses ass...of a different color.

He wouldn't know how to survive,
yet he is such a great pretender,
Talks alot of fluff,
when things get rough
He whines through his ego
greedy for rewards because
he never gets enough


Libertarian fool
uncivil tool
Another "grown up" loser
forever in elementary school

Angry white males ,shoulders full of chips
walking down the slaughter chute with little pithy quips

No they won't share
No one can make them care,
As long as they got theirs
and no one complains they grab and take,
They're happy ,believing thier own bullshit.

[Solly Mack]

64. K&R

:)

[Crunchy Frog]

72. The child whose education they pay for today will be wiping their bottom tomorrow.

[warren pease]

73. An educated population with the slightest clue about anything past those 30-second TV spots...

...would never have voted for some dangerously stupid, malicious psychopath idiot hick asshole because he'd be a good guy to have a beer with.

And yes I know 2000 was a fairly overt right wing coup and 2004 was a Rove production carried out by technicians working for Stephen Spoonamore and the late lamented Mike Connell, no longer able to testify about his part in stealing Ohio for the Bushies.

The fact remains that 40 some million of America's very finest fools voted for the miserable son of a bitch in 2000. And enchanted by his wit and style and grace under pressure and formidable oratorical skills, they did the same damn thing again in 2004.

Meanwhile, over in mass media's parallel universe, nobody knows that Connell was killed in a fiery plane crash said to have been caused by the plane's fuel tanks running dry.

A fiery crash, yet no fuel to feed the fire. Amazing how the Bushies are able to bend the most basic laws of the universe to support their cover stories.

Equally amazing is the amount of sheer idiotic gullibility afoot in the land. Such huge piles of it that the Bushies are assured of an uncritical audience of compliant functional illiterates, tens of millions of useless blobs of suet so dense and lacking in basic analytical skills that they actually believe these murderous lying bastards.

It's obvious that a decent education would improve the situation immensely. It's also obvious why eduction runs directly counter to our massuhs' best interests and why they refuse to provide it.


wp

[acmavm]

74. Any fucking idiot that would ask that question doesn't deserve any answer

but 'how stupid do you want the citizens and leaders of the future to be?'. And 'you got yours, so now you don't want to kick in for anyone else'.

Sometimes this is the pissiest place on planet Earth.

[DiverDave]

76. Education is the holy grail

and for the libertarians to not want to fund it is just ridiculous.

I DO believe that if they really thought it out they would see that it just doesnt make sense to dumb down a whole society.

Check out my sig lines, I believe them with all my soul.

[madokie]

77. I love paying taxes that provide the services of government

someone paid for mine years ago, were they bitching? So neither will I now that its my turn.

[dysfunctional press]

78. george costanza said it best- "we live in a SOCIETY!"...

of course, he was yelling it at a person who wouldn't get off the phone in the chinese restaurant episode.

we all pay for things that other people get, and we all get things that other people pay for.

pretty simple stuff, really. it makes it better for everyone.

[gollygee]

79. We'll be sure to send all the kids who aren't in school to his/her neighborhood to "have fun"

It's better if kids are learning something than if they're out and about causing mischief.

[Romulox]

80. America's hypocrisy: We're all "collectivists" when our children need education

but "rugged individualists" when we are making decisions in the marketplace.

What the OP said would be true if we didn't live in a "free trade"/everyone for himself society. But in a cut-throat capitalist society, paying for public education is merely subsidizing your own competitors. In short, the OP is nice in theory, but doesn't match up with the realty of America capitalist society.

[LeftishBrit]

82. Wonderful post. I agree 100 per cent.

[datasuspect]

83. it is humane to help the least among us

and to work together to ensure people can travel safely, enjoy clean, have fecal-matter free water, and that their children have the opportunity to learn how to read.

[LWolf]

87. Because making the world a better place

means making it better for all, not just for me.

Because "better" is inclusive, not exclusive.

Because we all depend on each other, in one way or another.

I could go on all day, but you've already done a fine job.

Not to mention the connection between a democratic republic and an educated voting population.

Which is why I've seen the war on intellectualism raging my entire lifetime. To maintain the status quo, the class divisions and power and wealth at the top, you have to keep the masses undereducated.

[tpsbmam]

88. When I meet a freeper who blathers on about socialism & Democrats.....

I ask them if they have kids/grandkids -- answer is usually yes. I ask where the kids go to school -- 99% of the time it's a public school. Then I tell them that I don't have kids in public schools and never did but yet I'm paying for their children to go to school which, by their standards, is socialistic. So why should I pay for THEIR kids to go to school?

I go on to explain that I'm happy to pay for their kids to get educated because I want my society to progress, I want a society that has the potential to sustain a strong prosperous country, I WANT an educated citizenship and I want it to be ALL citizens, not just the rich. And that means paying for ALL kids to go to school. Most of these freepers I meet who argue this could never afford to send their kids to private schools. I'd be happier if I were paying for a better education, particularly teaching kids to think critically and logically, but I'm happy that part of my taxes are actually going for something good, including educating freeper socialism is horrific kids.

[CrispyQ]

91. They put the individual over the collective.

They don't think in terms of the whole, but rather in individuals or in parts. So as long as their part is doing ok, who cares about the other parts? They are too short-sighted to see that eventually, the health of the whole is going to impact them too.

[Radical Activist]

93. There should be an extra tax on people who have children

because children represent a large tax burden on society. Those who choose to burden an overpopulated world with more children should pay a larger share of the costs associated with their choice.

[Romulox]

94. Love how you can rock the Che avatar and a "libertarian" POV at the same time.

Cognitive dissonance? Never heard of it! :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

95. I didn't argue from a libertarian viewpoint.

That was the OP's take from another conversation.
If you care about the greater good of society then you have to recognize the environmental and societal problems associated with overpopulation. That isn't a libertarian argument.
Some libertarian views are often called radical but I suppose you're entitled to your own definitions.

[Romulox]

96. Combating overpopulation isn't libertarian. Pay to play childrearing is. nt

[Radical Activist]

98. Then what's a tax system that unfairly rewards those with children?

I don't know what you call our current system that rewards those who choose to make selfish choices that place a greater burden on society. Maybe just ending the special tax breaks for families would be a good start.
We tax people at a higher rate for all sorts of choices like buying cigarettes, alcohol, not being a business owner etc. Add kids to the list.

[Pithlet]

128. When the outcome is the same, what is the difference?

So your viewpoint comes from a different rationale? Who cares? You can make it sound all progressive and stuff by making it all about the environment. Oooohh. But, what you argument really boils down to is taking resources away from children, just like the Libertarians. Your rational that it will somehow convince people to procreate less (as if) doesn't make it any more noble. Sorry.

[Radical Activist]

132. Who cares how you label things?

Determining motivation and rationale is how you define a political ideology. So rationale does matter if someone is claiming a viewpoint is libertarian.
Besides, I wasn't arguing a "fee for service" libertarian style tax system to being with. The person who responded to me was just being a flippant smartass.

[Pithlet]

136. Exactly.

You want to take resources away from children. Just like the Libertarians. Your motivations won't affect the damage done. So who cares how you label yourself. Exactly! Your viewpoint and the Libertarian's viewpoint are essentially the same. You're both arguing for the same thing. Because you think it will help the environment somehow doesn't change a thing. Edited for typos

[Radical Activist]

138. No, not at all.

I just edited my post to clarify that I wasn't arguing a "fee for service" tax system, which is a libertarian viewpoint. So by any definition I wasn't making a libertarian argument. I was making a case for a more fair tax system. The person who responded to me was just trying to be a smartass about it, as though libertarian and radical viewpoints don't often intersect.

Who cares how I label myself? The person who I was responding to who thinks a radical can't express a few libertarian viewpoints. Motivation and rationale is an essential part of defining ideology so anyone who thinks words should have meaning cares too.

[Pithlet]

142. Whatever you want to classify it, it isn't progressive in the least.

So, yeah. The name Radical Activist, with that avatar. Expressing the opinion you do, and claiming it is a more fair way of taxation? I find it absurd, too. Sure, a radical can express a few Libertarian viewpoints. And people are free to find it as absurd and illogical as it is.

You claim it's more fair. I don't see how. There's nothing stopping you from having kids, too, and cashing in on the sweet, sweet monetary rewards. Because you don't want any is not my problem. Now, excuse me. I have to retire to the money chamber and count the stacks of cash I got from having kids. It's in the same secret location that welfare queens keep their caddies.

[Radical Activist]

146. It would be more fair

because those who choose to have children are creating a larger tax burden on everyone, including those who don't choose to have children. Why should single people be punished for a choice they didn't make? People who make the choice to have children should pay at least an equal share of the tax burden they helped create, if not more.

It would be different if having children instead of adopting them were a responsible, sustainable choice. But in today's world it's really a selfish and irresponsible choice to have more than one or two children who aren't adopted. It would make sense if anyone having more than one or two children were put into a higher tax bracket. I suspect you think its absurd and illogical because that kind of system wouldn't benefit you personally.

[Pithlet]

149. Your argument would make more sense

if that larger tax burden didn't have a return on investment. If that money was just being sucked down some hole never to be seen again. But that's not the case. Children don't just disappear into the ether. They become us. The tax money that goes to ensure that society nurtures them and makes them into productive members of society benefits us because it IS us. We all got to where we are because of them. Those who have grown up and now want to proclaim that it is unfair and change things have seem to have either forgotten that, or it's "I've got mine now, screw them." Which is the case for you?

Your last sentence is where you go into bizarro illogical land on par with Repubs and Libertarians. Because your assertion that the tax benefits are somehow so large that they actually serve as some incentive for people to have kids is what puts it on a level with welfare queens and their caddies.

[Radical Activist]

154. There is value

investing in children. So why shouldn't families be willing to pay more taxes to support their choices instead of redistributing wealth from those who choose not to? I don't have a problem paying taxes for schools and the community in general. But why should I be taxed at a higher rate than those who choose to have children? If the things you mention are so important then no one should mind paying a little more in taxes when they have a child.
I never argued that taxes are an incentive to have more kids. You came up with that on your own.

[Pithlet]

158. Why shouldn't they be willing?

Because in addition to money, children take TIME to raise. If they have to work more hours or take a second job to pay the higher taxes you're imposing on them, that's no good is it?

You most certainly do heavily imply that tax breaks are an incentive. What else did you mean when you used the term "reward" in your argument for why they should be abolished in the context of overpopulation further upthread? Your argument was that there should be fewer children after all. What else did you mean by removing the tax breaks in that context, if you weren't implying they're an incentive to have children? At any rate, you seem to realize the failure of that argument because now you've changed tactics anyway, so its moot.

[JerseygirlCT]

117. Children

are also the future of our society.

Care for them well, educate them well, and we'll all live better lives.

[Pithlet]

130. Edit responded to wrong post

[trotsky]

129. There is.

The tax that their children will grow up and pay.

Shee-it, the stupidity. It burns.

[Radical Activist]

135. lol

I'm sure that will be a relief to single people who will be dead by the time those children start paying more in taxes than what they took out of the system. A lifetime of being gouged by an unfair tax code that gives special breaks to families is certainly negated by the thought that someday those children will be taxpayers too. :eyes: Yes, the stupidity does burn.

[trotsky]

137. The right wing uses the same logic against immigration.

Not surprising, I guess.

When you are old, and if you didn't have any children, who is paying for your government benefits? Ooh, OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS! The horror! Those damn freeloaders! :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

140. My arguments is pro-immigration.

Since population increase by immigration or adoption of children from the developing world makes more sense for the US than increase by having more children of our own.

Children have to be in the working world for years before they put more into the system than they take out. So no, they won't be paying any taxes to support old people until they're middle aged. In fact, I probably wouldn't need anyone to support me in old age at all if I got to keep the money that was taxed away from a lifetime of paying taxes for children.

People aren't going to stop having children so it's really about fairness. Why should families who create a larger tax burden on society have lower tax rates? I'm not convinced by the idea that they're paying more on collateral with their children. People with kids should be taxed more to reflect the larger burden they're selfishly placing on society.

[trotsky]

144. You are begging the question.

Why should families who create a larger tax burden on society have lower tax rates?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You haven't established this is the case - you're arguing as if it were a foregone conclusion that families with kids draw more from the treasury than they will put in. Europe is in fact proving the opposite to be true - an aging population with fewer children is running into huge financial problems trying to pay for the services the population has grown accustomed to.

[Radical Activist]

148. It's a fact

Every child a person has means another tax break that others don't get. Just being married itself means getting a tax break unavailable to single people. So those with children do pay lower taxes.

Are you arguing that a child who doesn't work is a lesser tax burden than a retired person who invests and spends money?

[trotsky]

150. Are you being dense on purpose?

Do you not understand that your ideological predecessors were arguing the same thing about those mooching children decades ago, who now HAVE grown up and are contributing taxpayers? Nothing is set up "pay-as-you-go." Current workers are paying for today's retirees. Are you having difficulty understanding how this works?

[Radical Activist]

151. Asking parents to pay a little more

for their choices doesn't change how that works.

[Pithlet]

152. Yeah. Well, I'll tell you what your way gets us. More babies.

You claim that your motive is a better planet, because somehow the motivation for this great baby boom of ours is this wonderful tax benefit of having babies. I'll tell you what gets more babies. A less educated population. I'll let you figure out what happens when the babies we bring into this world are less provided for because we're "equalizing" things with "fairer" taxes, oh most Radical of Activists. It really isn't hard to figure out what happens when children get less food, less clothing, and less education. Is it, Radical Activist? Which is better for the planet? A more educated population or an lesser educated one?

[Radical Activist]

153. No. we'll have a better educational system

because we'll be collecting more taxes that we can choose to spend on better schools. It works out for everyone when families start paying their share instead of income redistribution away from single people.

People aren't going to stop having children because of the tax code. But they can pay their fair share of the tax and societal burden they choose to create.

[Pithlet]

155. Wait a minute.

I thought the motivation was for people to have fewer children. Now the motivation is more money? Which is it, RA? Because we could just as easily find the money elsewhere. I can think of a few ideas. Oh, things like, fewer unnecessary wars. Taxing corporations more fairly. You know, things radicals can really get behind. A lot more blood from those stones, too. Not to mention the fact those entities can handle the burden a hell of a lot better. Because often those little credits you're radically begrudging the parents might mean the difference between having to work more hours or take a second job, and actually getting to stay home and help the kids with homework. Because better funded schools mean nothing if the parents aren't home because they're working their tails off to pay the higher taxes you radically raised on them. Edited for yet more typos.

[Radical Activist]

156. I wrote

in my first post on this topic that a higher tax would be to reflect the costs associated with the greater burden their choice places on society. Feel free to go back and read it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4768021&mesg_id=4769861

See.

You write of the horrors and difficulties of parenthood. They chose that path. Choices have consequences.

[Pithlet]

159. Yes, they do. Choices have consequences.

And the consequences of raising the taxes on parents to punish them for those choices you disapprove of is children who aren't taken care of as well. Unless they're rich of course and can afford the increase so they don't have to work more to make up for it, but they get really good tax breaks in other areas, so that will more than make up for the tax punishment you're imposing on them, so that's okay for them. Consequences, indeed. Radical, man! Our party obviously needs more solutions like these.

[Pithlet]

160. Look. This is what it boils down to. Plenty of goods and services get tax breaks

that provide a service or benefit to society. Childrearing isn't the only thing. Far from it. You've switched your tactics as to why you think that particular tax break should be abolished, but I've had my suspicions from the first as to your true reason. I realize I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect you're resentful of it because you're childless and you think it's unfair. Well, fine. But the thing is, you have options other than just having children yourself even though you don't want to. I agree. That wouldn't be a good idea. However, you are perfectly able to prove your case as to how not having children is a benefit to society and how that should also entitle you to tax breaks. See, I think that would be a far better idea. Far more progressive. Far more befitting the moniker of Radical Activist. Because calling to abolish a very progressive tax that truly does benefit society does not, and fits far more with a moniker like LivesinthebasementwithmomandpostsatFreeRepublic. And I would fully support you in the latter endeavor. I know I've been rather snarky, but I'm totally serious here. I don't think you'd likely be successful any time soon. But I think it would be worth a shot, and I think that is where your arguments about the population problem would fit better.

[Radical Activist]

162. Frankly

I don't care enough about it to be resentful or spend time advocating that the tax code be changed. I focus on other things. I'm making an argument about a topic somebody posted.

You wrote:
"Plenty of goods and services get tax breaks that provide a service or benefit to society. Childrearing isn't the only thing."

But this is just the opposite. People are getting a tax break for something that brings a greater tax burden on society. Its backwards. It's both unfair and supports unsustainable behavior. That's why I'm arguing both points.

I don't know how you give people a tax break for the negative activity of not having kids. Does a person get the tax break for every year after they turn 18 until they have children? Taking away the break for kids or increasing taxes for those with kids is essentially the same and makes more sense.

[Pithlet]

165. It's a benefit to society. Not a burden. That is where you're wrong.

People don't dump permanent children that never grow up and constantly suck up resources for ever and ever. You keep blatantly ignoring the fact that they grow up and become productive members of society, and THAT'S the reason for the tax breaks, and thus the investment. The more resources, and the better raised the children. The better the grownups that result. Return on investment. NOT a burden. That's your deep seated resentment twisting your thinking. Something is making you willfully forget that children grow up and contribute to society. You're going to tell me I'm wrong on that. Maybe I am. But I can think of few things that would cause such a distorted view of things. You care, and you care rather strongly that things are just so Unfair! or you wouldn't continue to distort things so badly and see things that way. Nothing changes the fact that society recognizes that we don't make the job HARDER. That DOESN'T benefit society. Not logical.

I don't know how you would give tax breaks for such a thing. But if it would keep some people from whining about such a relatively small progressive tax when we have much bigger fish to fry? I'd be all for it. Maybe make it part of a checklist. Things that people do to help the environment and make a better world. Drive a hybrid? Check. Compost? Don't shop at Wal Mart? Check. Have no kids? Check. The more things you check off? The more tax breaks you get. Something like that. Do it every year, when we do our taxes.

[Radical Activist]

170. First,

no tax policy is going to stop people from having kids so I'm not worried about the end of people having children who grow up to become adults.

Second, there's no way of knowing which kids will grow up to be productive members of society and which will be a drain on society for their entire lives. So you can't assume that children will one day contribute to society.

I think there are some things you don't want to admit about the negative aspects of overpopulation because kids are oh so special and cute.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.html

At the least, ending the tax break after one or two kids, or having an increase for those with more than two children, would reflect the negative impact their choice is having on society and be more fair.

[Pithlet]

175. Oh, yay, We're back to overpopulation!

I have no idea what it has to do with the fact that kids do in fact grow up eventually, barring catastrophe, and contribute to society, so they are in fact NOT tax burdens whatever the actual population numbers, but okay. I also don't know how you could possibly be inferring anything about my views on overpopulation and what it is doing to our earth, since I've given zero indication of that. But, whatever. Yes, overpopulation. It isn't good for the planet. Taking a moment to wring my hands. I'm suitably worried about it. There. Satisfied? Okay. Back to the fact that children do indeed grow up and contribute to society. There's no way of knowing exactly which children will contribute, you say? Oh, how very progressive, and not right wing at all! Radical Activist. But, okay. You know how you ensure that the greatest percentage of them will contribute in a meaningful way? Don't make the job harder on the parents by raising their tax burden. That's a start.

You know, your rationale is exactly like the people who want to take away social programs like welfare. Because being poor is a choice because of laziness, and we shouldn't have to pay for that burden either. You can pretend it away by bringing up overpopulation as an obfuscation. When all you want to do is punish people for a "choice" you disapprove of. People can make the choice YOU did instead, after all, right? Just like people can make the same choices right wing assholes did, and then wouldn't need soical programs. If all they'd do is live the same life choices you/they did, for the same reasons you/they did, they wouldn't need the social program/tax credit, and wouldn't be the burdens to us all. It's a disgusting, twisted kind of rationalization. Burdens to society. Nothing Radical about it. At least, not in the way you think, with that avatar you chose, and all.

[Hannah Bell]

192. I told you Che wanted his avatar back, & you still haven't returned it. Tsk.

[bobbolink]

203. ......

:applause: :rofl:

[gollygee]

214. You really should replace your avatar

with someone who had/has opinions something like yours. I think even most Republicans are to the left of you. There's no point in helping children because we don't know which ones will be "productive"? Che must be spinning in his grave.

[trotsky]

161. STILL begging the question.

"the greater burden their choice places on society"

If you haven't had kids (or adopted, or whatever), and you go broke in the stock market or didn't manage to save enough for retirement, who has become the greater burden?

Honestly, you just don't get it.

[Pithlet]

163. Because it really isn't about that.

I do think it's about the "Why don't *I* get a tax break, too". Maybe we can get an argument about why people who choose to remain childfree should get one. Maybe there really is a good argument for one? Who knows? But there is this segment of DU that really does seem to be resentful of people who've had kids, for some reason. It's very irrational. People like that are never going to argue that people who've made "choices" that have led to their burden on society in other ways should be taxed more. Of course not. That would make them complete ogres. But a very progressive tax that we all benefit from? Get rid of it, because it benefits parentssssssssss! It's crazy, and not based in any sort of logic whatsoever. They'll usually try to grasp for something though to make it seem more reasonable. Like the overpopulation canard.

[trotsky]

164. You are 100% correct.

I am reminded of the following quote - it equally applies to the libertarianesque viewpoint that occasionally rears its head here:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

[Radical Activist]

172. I support higher taxes on

alcohol
cigarettes
gas guzzling SUVs
carbon tax for polluters
and others whose choices increase the financial burden on the rest of society.

I expect I'll have kids one day but I don't think people who make a selfish decision to have kids are deserving of a special tax break. If you can't afford to have kids then don't. I can't think of any other tax breaks that people get for doing something that causes a dramatic increase in the tax burden on everyone else. The position parents take is irrational. They think they deserve it because their kids are special and they don't care that everyone else is forced to help pick up the tab for their decision.

[Pithlet]

179. Wow, you're going to have kids?

And you don't know the difference between kids, and alcohol and cigarettes and gas guzzling SUVs and polluters and all the rest? Here's a friendly tip. There's a difference. Yeah, it can't be repeated enough until you get it, if you actually might have kids some day, I'm doing you a favor. They aren't burdens on society, generally speaking. No matter how they turn out. As aren't poor people, people with physical difficulties, people who can't work for whatever reason etc. Radical Activist. It's pretty important for you to lose that attitude before you have them. It's a shame you didn't lose it before you joined DU with your name and avatar.

No. Radical Activist. Parents DON'T think that. Society does. Because they know a little something you simply can't grasp. Kids grow up and contribute to society. In some meaningful way. They don't take the attitude "Well, how do we KNOW they're going to?" We know. We don't all think like you do. That's a good thing. So we enacted a tax credit, acnowledging that fact, and helping them along. Hopefully we don't listen to too many people who think like you, just like we won't listen to too many people who think we should get rid of social programs for similar reasoning.

[Pithlet]

182. You know, the more I think about it.

I just realized. You say you might have kids some day. So I maybe I did have you pegged wrong. It was the whole overpopulation thing that threw me off and had me peg you wrong. No you aren't averse to actually having kids yourself, which makes your position even harder for me to swallow, now. You don't think you're ever going to need that tax credit, and the tax breaks, do you? Is it because you think you've got it all figured out? You're never going to make any mistakes, or nothing's ever going to happen to you financially? So you're never going to need it? Or, if it does you deserve the suffering missing those breaks will entail, (and your kid will suffer, too). Right? Because it was choices you made. Or you're so rich that there's little chance you'll ever be there where YOU need it, so it doesn't matter. Get rid of it. You know, I liked it a lot better when I just thought it was about the whole Childfree/Overpopulation thing. Because that is the core of rigid, right wing "Don't have them if you can't afford them" ideology, right there.

[Radical Activist]

171. A person who has worked

their entire life has already contributed to the system. Children have not yet contributed and there's no guarantee they will ever be anything but a burden on the system.

[trotsky]

176. If you ever understand the math involved, let's argue this subject again.

Of course if you really understood the math of what constitutes a "burden," and just how many children DO grow up and contribute versus what they "drained" you undeniably wouldn't hold the position you do. :eyes:

[Pithlet]

180. You know what's a real burden to our system? Poor kids.

Poor kids make up a very large percentage of the poor in the US, Radical Activist. Did you know that? Do you know what would make that number even larger, among other non-progressive things one could propose? Raising the tax burden on them. Because like every progressive tax policy, removing it would hurt the poor the most. And when you hurt the poor the most, which part of their population suffers the most? The kids. And, yet again, what problem does it solve not in the least? That's right. The overpopulation problem. So, we have even more poor kids that we'll have to take care of somehow, because just visit any 3rd world country to see what happens if we don't. Not pretty. They're going to be a burden anyway. So, might as well hold on to that tax break you hate so much. Like I've said a few times already in this thread. It's a start. And, voila. It increases the chance they'll better contribute to society more meaningfully.

[undergroundpanther]

184. The real burden is RICH KIDS

Rich kids born into rich dynastic families of robber barons who own huge corporations, do no real work but living off the family fortune and pay practically no taxes and ship labor overseas to pinch pennies and ruin lives off the little poor people they think do not matter.
Get with it,,THE GREEDY create the NEEDY, not the other way around.

There should be a LIMIT on how much one can have.As long as many do not have there should not be a few with decadent pampered lifestyles paid for by other people.

The banks take trillions from the government no questions asked besides how much do you want.
A working class or poor person asking for a chump change loan to save their ass you have to tell them anything and everything.The system is a FAILURE, and the children of the RICH get a free pass by our wealth worshiping country letting them be narcissistic,ignorant,total insatiable scamming greedy PIGS who caused this failure.

[Pithlet]

188. I know. Rich people use far more resources.

I was trying to make the point that the proposal to do away with a progressive tax that helps families raise children would actually create more of a "burden". RA's point being more "productive members of society" I was phrasing it in the same idiotic terms being used by the person I was arguing with. My point was there's no getting that with making it harder for parents to raise their kids by throwing up even more barriers. That's all an idiotic thing like removing such tax breaks does.

Really, to complain about the tax breaks parents get is just so ludicrous that I can't believe I'm arguing about it with someone on DU. It's such a pittance compared with the breaks that rich people get. It's really not worth considering. It's like worrying about a hang nail when your body is riddled with cancer.

[undergroundpanther]

190. Yeah I know

Libertarians are hypocritical fools. Bullies justifying their own evils. I hate them, I hate anything that stinks of the self justifying whining of the rich.
All taxation should be progressive if we lived in a SANE world.

[Hannah Bell]

193. Trust fund kiddies. Gotta keep offshoring jobs to bump up returns to provide for them.

[varelse]

198. No adult lives without having first been a child

some of us, sadly, never "graduate" :(

[hughee99]

168. Without children, who will pay off the debt we've saddled them with?

They'll get what's coming to them down the line.

[Naturyl]

99. Libertarians are evil.

It's social Darwinism, plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry to call it so bluntly, but there it is. I have no use for social Darwinism.

[undergroundpanther]

185. agreed social darwinism

is a rationalization for sociopaths to get what they want,which is to fuck up others lives, be greedy,be mean and control everyone else.
So are the base babbling of the rich and callous called" conservative values".

[Lorien]

103. My answer to that is always a simple "because today's kids are tomorrow's

leaders, police, medics, doctors, teachers,scientists, etc. and when I'm old, I don't want to live in a world ruled by dumbasses".

I don't have kids, but I consider public education a top priority.

[redqueen]

112. ...

:applause:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. My wife runs a dog rescue I'd be grateful for some government support.

[JerseygirlCT]

118. Have you looked into getting a 501 -c-3?

If your wife is seriously doing something of benefit to the community, then perhaps you should look into that, and then seek grants - including from the gov't.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. It is a 501 c3.

It's actually not bad now. We make pretty good money and are pretty good at fundraising.

David

[JerseygirlCT]

120. Glad to hear it! nt

[Fire1]

116. BRAVO!!!!

[rucky]

121. Good schools protect your property values.

That usually gets 'em.

[Waiting For Everyman]

122. Poor people pay for stuff they get too - they forget that part.

Libertarian-types are not the only ones who pay into the tax system. But they act like they are. They also act like they don't get anything out of it themselves, which is bull. Poor people actually pay a lot of taxes. All of us do. The phrase "my tax dollars" says it all. They are not personally the Treasury, and it doesn't exist to fund only what they want. It's "our tax dollars". It's again, the mentality that they're the only ones who count.

[bobbolink]

199. And there will be a thread coming up to show that POOR FOLKS PAY MORE!

Especially with regressive taxes, which are more and more popular with "progressives". :cry:

On our last ballot, there was a proposed sales tax for benefits for "mentally challenged" people. I voted against is because of the regressive nature, and so did a lot of people. Of course, then there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth that we just don't CARE about them.

NOPE.. I will happily, and PROUDLY vote for it when it's tied to income! And probably get out there and help campaign for it!

NOBODY could seem to connect the dots.. that the people who were to benefit would ALSO be paying that tax, and it would hurt them a lot more than it hurts the muddleclass.

THINK! It only hurts for a little while....

[maryf]

204. Hear hear! Bobbie!!

When will folks learn the only fair taxes are progressive income taxes? Sales tax really impacts the poor so much more, property taxes too, especially impacting the elderly on fixed incomes...progressive income tax would be fair and actually save the vast majority of people money...

[Canuckistanian]

125. Because someone paid for THEIR education

Although in their case it seems like a waste.

[FloridaJudy]

127. Because it's in your own best interest.

Because I want the guy who fixes my brakes to know WTF he's doing.
Because I want my doctor to know what the latest research into my illness indicates is the best therapy.
Because I want the cop who answers my distress call to be trained, and not just a trigger-happy yahoo.
Because I want my lawyer to be familiar with previous rulings in cases like mine.
Because I want the architect and builder who construct my house to be familiar with geology and physics.

I could go on, but do I really need to?

[slackmaster]

133. If it helps prevent your child from becoming a career criminal or just unemployable I'm happy to pay

:hi:

[atommom]

134. Good post. It frustrates me to no end to hear this sort of crap coming

from my Christian conservative relatives. You'd think they would feel a little cognitive dissonance there. I'm not sure how the "every man for himself" philosophy can be seen as more moral than humanism. :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

139. Yet they will forget when some idiot kid steals their car...

Had that kid been well cared for with a proper education, which can't help but boost self-esteem.

Dominoes, dumbasses, domin-freaking-oes! One thing leads to the next, or not...

[Sparkly]

143. I think this is what "Left" vs. "Right" boils down to.

Good post. :thumbsup:

[JNelson6563]

145. That whole "greater good" concept

You're doin' it right. :toast:

[LoZoccolo]

147. You make a good point that could have been made better...

...without all the whining and reference to another thread.

[Forkboy]

166. This coming from Mr. Dooga Dooga Dooga himself?

How many threads have you had locked over the years there, Sport?

You really are a maroon, aren't you? :rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

173. I think I made my point in that video.

Proof: people are still talking about it. People do not want to hear that the Nader rhetoric is just as good as saying "dooga dooga dooga dooga"!

I also made a Larouche video, and a FReeper video. I'm a little afraid to put the FReeper video up because the FReepers might go after me. The Larouche woman came up to me and started talking, so she wanted to be heard. But she came off as cult-like. But still I don't think she'd go after me for putting it up because pretty much she just started talking and talking and answered a few softball questions.

In the FReeper video I also faced trouble from the police as they came for me three times to get me away from the FReepers, which I have documented.

But it's kind of what I'm talking about: the fact that you called me a "maroon" ruins your cleverness. You don't have to do that. Protip: try to show your feelings as little as possible when you attack someone. Make it about them.

[Forkboy]

181. Delusions of grandeur: check.

[ulysses]

195. *spits merlot out nose*

Ow. :D

[undergroundpanther]

209. No wineing

Anyway you gonna smell that merlot all night.I did when I blew wine out my nose,it hurt and never again if I can help it.

[ulysses]

194. hey, it got you to respond to a thread about poverty.

I'll take that as a success. :D

[GinaMaria]

157. Because you can benefit financially

By paying property taxes, homeowners fund schools in their areas. The quality of the schools in your area has a direct effect on your home's value. While that can increase your property taxes, it means more going into the schools and increasing your home's value. It's a symbiotic relationship. I have no children in the school system here, but there is an outstanding public school in my neighborhood. People are climbing over each other trying to buy property so their kids can go to this school. Even with the economic problems, my area has held on to home values better than a lot of others.

Investing in your local schools, making sure they are top notch and attractive increases your property values.

If you can't reach a libertarian through his wallet... I don't know what else to say. They won't listen to arguments about society and building the future. It comes down to short term money goals, not long term quality of life goals when trying to reach those who think like this, in my experience anyway.

[bobbolink]

174. DAMN! I'm glad you're on *my* side, ulysses!

You don't know how much it means to me to "hear" someone express such righteous anger that so clearly dovetails with my life.

:pals:

I don't care what the rest of 'em say, you're one cool dude. :hi:

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[ulysses]

196. honestly, I figured this would drop after the first night.

Memo to self: cuss more. :)

[Deja Q]

177. No more superficial one-liners; the whole system needs overhauled.

I'll happily pay my taxes, but I am also allotted a say.

I know what it was like when my parents were in school (what they told me, not because I was there because that was impossible).

I know what it was like when I was in school.

I know what it is like, having read up on what happens in school these days.


Real reform needs to take place.

Budgeting needs to be put back into classes.

I am for school uniforms. Why? Because kids are there to learn. Not to parade around with shirts featuring logos or slogans that only incite unrest; either via crudity and/or politicizing and/or proselytizing, religious or otherwise. As the stone age people called it, kids are there for "the three R's". Period. Not to mention gang affiliation or whatever other tangential issue is afoot. Hell, in 1987 shirts with slogans like "Metal up your ass" (complete with distasteful accompanying graphic) were prevalent and nobody gave a damn. I don't even want to see what's "tolerated" these days. Indeed, maybe it was over the top to have teachers slap a student's wrist for chewing gum. That was 1950. What happens these days? Spit gum at a teacher and no doubt it'll be accepted as "free speech". Give me strength; teachers today have their own wrists tied behind their backs and the parents are too busy working or making more kids to care. If Ms. Clinton is right, it DOES take a village, and education is just as viable a part of a village as any other.

Respecting elders and peers would be nice too. Punish the bullies, not their victims. "Boys will be boys" is not an acceptable excuse. That's bull shit. Bring back the ruler and slap the wrists too. Do it. If teenyboppers want to get all rebel on everyone else's asses, fine - convince them of their errs or allow them to go to another country and see what it's like. They'll grow up fast enough.

Make education pay off - so stop offshoring jobs. If money is an incentive, kids of today will truly tune out. If it's bad now, and nothing changes, just wait. And that's the most important aspect of them all.


I don't know anymore. Maybe it's all futile. But what was once too stringent is now too lax. And nobody wants to talk about it because of so-called "rights", which really aren't. "Lord of the Flies" - worth reading...

[undergroundpanther]

187. Simple overhauls but drastic

Allow no bullies to prey on other kids. Period.

Be INTOLERANT to bullies and bully behaviors.

Kick bullies out on their ass if they refuse to be decent people.

And send them to a bully school with their own kind try to help them as best as you can,find out if the home is traumatic, put them in a safe place, let them heal. Than let them out at age 18.

If they didn't use their time at bully school to change,then it is obvious they don't want to change. If they commit a violent crimes and are convicted of more violent crimes like murder,pedophilia, rape or domestic abuse,three times after all that help was offered and understanding given to them..something drastic must be done to stop them. Something lasting to make sure they are unable to harm people again.People cannot continue to love the people that wants to torture or destroy others forever.There has to be an end to how much abuse we as a society and as individuals will put up with if we want any sanity in this world.There has to be LIMITS on what a person can DO to others,who are not harming them.

Social darwinism is evil. It is it's most evil in evil hands.

Not everyone's hands are evil,not everyone has a sociopath,narcissistic or authoritarian personality type..
Some people are very humane but are misunderstood because they have clear boundaries and do not tolerate intolerable acts.
Sadly tho many people in this society do have bad personalities and many people cannot recognize them clearly and so lump all of humanity into one.Sociopaths,authoritarians and narcissists can not be trusted around anyone or with anything.They have no inner restraints.

Society has to face up to this personality problem.

If we do not learn to recognize this is danger to human well being, I hate to see the future these bad people will force us into living through.

[Mike 03]

191. Thank you, beautiful post. NT

[maryf]

201. Kick!!! wish I could rec

So sorry I missed this 'til now!!! Great post!!!:yourock:

[Hekate]

211. Libertarians wouldn't know enlightened self-interest if it bit them in the butt...

... much less enlightened human decency.

Hekate

[mainer]

216. Answer: Why should my child provide YOUR health care?

Children are necessary for society because eventually they grow up and become contributing members of society. If no one produced children, then no one would become tomorrow's doctors and firemen and policemen. If people refuse to pay for children's educations, then they should accept the consequences and prepare to be ignored when they're 65 and roll into the E.R. In fact, that could be on the ER admitting form: "Did you opt out of paying for our staff's childhood education? Then good bye."