Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Taxifornia!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I added that last bit after your post. Not really fair. But you have to admit, other revenues is us.
 
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".
 
Obama...sounds good...

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

Hell must have froze over.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top