Taxifornia!

[wacoflyr]

Waco,

I believe in helping people -- but Charity is NOT a proper function of government. Charity is a function of the Church and other Charities ... Separation of Church and State you know.

Explained in this Davy Crockett story:

Not Yours to Give.pdf - Not Yours to Give

I simply disagree. A well ordered society takes care of it's own. We are a country with many religions, and to consign such an important task to such a diverse idea just does not sit well with me. I believe in something that old people can count on. The church down the street might disappear next week. My father could linger for a decade or more, and your 'convenient ' idea could wither, particularly since he is a pain in the a$$, and who wants to support someone like that?

It seems like you just don't want to pay the freight. Until it is your turn. I bet you change your tune then.

Wacoflyr

 

[imacdog]

Ok, perhaps I diverged. My fault. Back to this quote; Why is it such a stretch that these payments from all of us go to help the disenfranchised? Do you not want to help them? Or would you like to help them? If so, how? This is a simple question. A simple answer would be good.

Social Security payments go into the Social Security fund. Payments for what you describe come from other revenues. These issues are not related.

 

[wacoflyr]

Social Security payments go into the Social Security fund. Payments for what you describe come from other revenues. These issues are not related.

No! Less than half of social security goes to those who have 'retired.' Most goes to those who have suffered from disabiliy, or to widows. I admit I'm playing fast and loose, but would USA Today lie?

That was a joke. 'Other revenues,' I'm afraid, comes right back to us. It just does. Why argue this point? You know it does.

 

[imacdog]

I admit I'm playing fast and loose, but would USA Today lie?

Please tell me this is a trick. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining how SS is so far in the hole?

 

[wacoflyr]

Sorry, I added that last bit after your post. Not really fair. But you have to admit, other revenues is us.

 

[imacdog]

Yes of course they are. The question is, what revenues are appropriate for the government to take, how should the burden be distributed to, and collected from the people, and how far does the government's role play in supporting society? That is what is being broken down in this discussion. Not quite as simple as "well WE pay for that, who cares how".

 

[Nevergreen]

deleted

 

[gunfyter]

Oh heartless me...

Obama Debt Panel Proposal Would Cut Social Security, Medicare...

...End Tax Deduction for Mortgage Interest...

...Raise the Retirement Age...
​

Sounds good to me....

Not because I want it ... because we are Broke and we can't afford it.

 

[glasspilot]

Obama...sounds good...

WTF is going on here? Now you support Obama?!?!?

Hell must have froze over.

 

[gunfyter]

Hell must have froze over.

I hope it has.... And with the Republican Congress ... maybe he can geter done like Clinton did.

 

[jonjuan]

Obama Debt Panel Proposal Would Cut Social Security, Medicare...

...End Tax Deduction for Mortgage Interest...

...Raise the Retirement Age...
​

Sounds good to me....

Not because I want it ... because we are Broke and we can't afford it.

Agreed with the elimination of subsidies, both here and abroad. Zero need to continue to pay people to own a home, buy a car, etc.
Talk about death by a thousand cuts...
http://v2.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/09/131192182/cotton


Why U.S. Taxpayers Are Paying Brazilian Cotton Growers

In other words, the United States and Brazil are in the middle of a war over cotton. It's an emotional and quiet war complete with global retaliation and a $147 million bribe. It all started with a man named Pedro Camargo.

Pedro is a Brazilian cattle farmer and former trade official. He has huge glasses and a gray bushy mustache. He says the U.S. is cheating.


U.S. cotton farmers, Pedro says, get subsidies from the U.S. government that add up to somewhere between $1.5 billion and $4 billion a year.

The American negotiators sat down in Brazil and immediately declared it impossible to get rid of the cotton subsidies right away. But the two sides came to an agreement.

The U.S. would pay Brazilian cotton farmers $147 million a year, and Brazil would drop the threat of retaliation.

To review: The United States was found to be illegally subsidizing U.S. cotton farmers. We are still subsidizing U.S. cotton farmers. Now the U.S. paying Brazilian cotton farmers, too.

"Maybe it's a bribe," Pedro Camargo says. "For Brazilian farmers, it's a lot of money."