View Full Version : "Gun control" is hitting what you aim at
C K Dexter Haven
08-11-1999, 01:16 PM
Right on, Zamb! We want NO government interference in our lives! Creeping socialism, thass what it is -- gummint telling us what to do and how to behave.
Streets, for example, and traffic laws! What right has the gummint got to tell me where I can drive and where I can't drive? The Constitution gave me the right to a four-wheel drive jeep, so I can drive over your lawn if I feel like it. And think of all the gov't waste, painting lines on the roads, putting up traffic signs and signals, all interfering with MY freedom to move about as I please!
Or the police departments. You got it, Zamb -- Don't rely on the government to protect you from being held up. Police departments are just government interference with my right to protect myself. We don't need police, if every citizen was armed with a few uzis and some spare hand grenades, we could protect ourselves! No need for cops at all! You drive across MY lawn, and I blow you away!!
Don't want to work? Hah! The Canadians give you a check! In the good ol' U.S., if you don't work, you don't get paid. Damn straight! And we don't bother with distinctions, whether you don't want to work because you've been fired, or because you can't find a job, or because you're sick, or because you have to take care of your family -- no discrimination in America! You don't work, you don't get money, you worthless bum!
Medical care, that's one where the U.S. government hasn't interfered too much yet. Break your leg? In Canada, the damn government will fix it. Hah! The U.S. system is far better -- break your leg and you can PAY to have it fixed YOURSELF, if you have enough money or insurance. If you don't have enough money, you're SOL, but that's YOUR fault for not having enough money, you no-good worthless jobless bum!
08-11-1999, 02:02 PM
Dex, I love you! You MUST come up to the house for a duck dinner. Just stay the hell offa my lawn.
08-11-1999, 02:29 PM
You're right Dex. This is not government for the people by the people. Hell, we all know that the people are a bunch of morons. If we let them keep any of their own money, well they would just spend it on houses, or child care or food. Selfish Bastards!
The people are a bunch of heathen slobs who can't even figure out how to pay for a pork barrel project. When they are allowed to have money, they spend on things that do no good whatsoever..well except that the people are the consumers that support commerce and industry. But they squander their money supporting businesses, banks, farms, manufacturers, etc.
And industry has never done anyone any good...except the people that they pay wages to, well yeah and maybe they provide some of the public's needs. But other than providing jobs and usefull products, they are all selfish robber barons just in it to make a lousy profit. Show me a company that doesn't turn a profit and I'll show you a good company.
Andwhat are jobs, cars, clothing medicine and food? Just the type of crap that those selfish bastards "The People" squander their money on.
No, Dex. People should indeed not be able to keep their own money. The government should decide how they spend it. Take every dime away and give em only what they need to survive. That's what I say. Hell their jopb is to work and earn it. It os the government's job to spend it. The politicians, they are the trustworthy ones.
08-11-1999, 02:41 PM
Well, it certainly brings a tear to my eye when people who would gross over $60,000 per year can't eat or buy adequate shelter because of all the damn taxes.
Friggin' poor people! They get what they deserve if you ask me. I was thinking about just this topic the other day when I was at church.
Save the DuPonts!
08-11-1999, 02:47 PM
In Canada the government will fix your leg if you break it?
Hell, Dex, we must be posting from different universes! In this reality, the Canadian government doesn't consist of physicians, nurses, paramedics, or even hospital trustees!
No wonder you're so impressed with the Canadian lifestyle. In your universe, Canada must actually be worth something!
C K Dexter Haven
08-11-1999, 02:57 PM
Exaggeration for the sake of sarcasm, Akat... actually, I was quoting Zambinzi. But the error is only technical -- the appropriate Canadian provincial health service will provide medical care, at no direct charge. Calling the provincial health service "government" was Zambizi's post, I just followed up on it.
08-11-1999, 03:06 PM
Are you people out of your minds? YOu WANT the government to take more of your money away? How about this, why don't you just go give your money to people who need it? And I mean every damn penny that is not going to food or shelter.
Topolino, you go to church. Can you find that passage for me that says "the state shall force people to be charitable" ?
If someone works their ass off, spends a fortune on education and makes good money, why should they have to give it up (beyond reasonable taxes for defense, infrastructure, etc.)?. Is the government the tool to redistribute that wealth?
Who ever heard of such a preposterous idea as a merit based economy. Pish Posh!
08-11-1999, 03:16 PM
Only in the US can you live in Palm Beach, Fla. (the island) and cross over the bridge to the mainland and be in the ghetto. From the most expensive street in the country to a neighborhood that you're afraid to drive because you could get shot. At least in Canada you don't have to pay to have armed guards at the entranceway to your subdivision to keep the poor out. What a country!
08-11-1999, 03:20 PM
Mr. Zambezi, we have yet another difference of opinion. You're willing to let the government spend your tax money on defense (what the Pentagon feels is appropriate), but not to feed the poor. I'd go the opposite way.
08-11-1999, 03:28 PM
I agree with Uke. Let the gov't spend billions of dollars on humanitarian acts like their involvement Kosova. What you're actually saying is that that you would rather have the gov't save the povershed in far away 3rd world countries instead of fixing the problems at home. What kind of backward redneck thinkin is that!
08-11-1999, 03:32 PM
Well, damn it Ike, why didn't you say that in the first place.
I am all for decreasing the military budget and spending on sane, sound programs that keep the population healty and educated. Now, I am sure we would disagree on what those programs are. But I am definitely against the military actions taken by our government in the past 40 years.
I am for solid programs that address basic needs--infrastructure, health, defense (not offense), police, fire, libraries, education MENTAL HEALTH, jails etc.
Damn, And I was looking forward to making some wise cracks about you.
08-11-1999, 03:37 PM
Feel free. Just don't shoot me.
08-11-1999, 04:25 PM
Topolino, you go to church. Can you find that passage for me that says "the state shall
force people to be charitable" ?
Actually, I don't. I said that to emphasize the hypocrisy of calling oneself a Christian yet declaring that programs to help the poor are disgusting. I can probably find a passage or two about helping others who need our help. Now, you may not be a Christian but, trust me, I know plenty of people who are that make greed into an art. Last time I checked, greed was one of the big sins.
To be completely honest, I probably wouldn't even be considered Christian, but I still get really angry about the "I have a big house, three cars, a butler, and I hate it when the gov't takes my money to help those wretched poor people. I'm such a good person. I'm a shoe-in for heaven" attitude.
Basically, I was acting that role.
08-11-1999, 04:39 PM
My wife an I are christian. We do help the poor. I hate it when someone says " we don't trust you to help the poor so we are going to tax you higher and do it ourselves." That is not charity. That is the Sheriff of knottingham playing Robin Hood.
I do not trust the government to deliver charity. Essential services are one thing. Redistribution of wealth is veeeery different.
DAmn you reasonable liberals.
Hey Uke, tell me about that cockamamie "No Private Cars" idea.
08-11-1999, 08:02 PM
I will merely point out how Canada was #1 - something like 10 places above the United States - in the last UN Human Development Report. Toodles.
08-11-1999, 08:11 PM
The difference between Canada and the United States, as I see it, is that the United States drops everyone in the ocean and yells Swim! The problem is that some people land in wading pools and other people land in the ocean. In Canada it's the same, except we have a coast guard.
All larger organisms, including ourselves, are living testimonies to the fact that destructive practices do not work in the long run. In the end, the aggressors always destroy themselves, making way for others who know how to cooperate and get along. Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity.
- Fritjof Capra, The Web Of Life
The idea of absolute freedom is fiction. It's based on the idea of an independent self. But in fact there's no such thing. There's no self without other people. There's no self without sunlight. There's no self without dew. And water. And bees to pollinate the food that we eat... So the idea of behaving in a way that doesn't acknowledge those reciprocal relationships is not really freedom, it's indulgence.
- Peter Coyote
Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint... This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice... but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.
- Edmund Burke
08-11-1999, 08:12 PM
And we don't bother with distinctions, whether you don't want to work because you've been fired, or because you can't find a job, or because you're sick, or because you have to take care of your family -- no discrimination in America! You don't work, you don't get money, you worthless bum!
*COUGH* unemployment compensation *COUGH*
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.
08-11-1999, 08:39 PM
matt_mcl whimpers:The difference between Canada and the United States, as I see it, is that the United States drops everyone in the ocean and yells Swim! The problem is that some people land in wading pools and other people land in the ocean. In Canada it's the same, except we have a coast guard.
And, of course, that coast guard straps sixty pounds of lead weights to anyone who shows an ability to do the dog paddle.
Here in the States, of course, we only strap thirty pounds of lead weights to such a person. I'd credit political bosses here with stealing the idea from Canadians, but that would imply that Cabadians can have an idea; both notions are probably derived from European "good lordship".
08-11-1999, 09:03 PM
You smug, Canadian pricks (of whom I'm one). Yes, we've been in the top three of the U.N.'s standard of living index for, like, the last twenty years, while the U.S. hasn't, to my knowledge, broken the top ten. Yes, we also invented concrete and basketball. And burning the White House to the ground in the war of 1812? That was proto-Canadians.
Just don't bring up the forced sterilizations that were being done in Alberta as late as the seventies.
08-12-1999, 12:25 AM
Another thread on "gun control" on the Great Debates forum. Ho hum.
"Natural" rights, Constitutional rights, the Federalist Papers, etc., have all been cited in defense of private gun ownership before, and undoubtedly will be again. These are just pretexts and rationalizations, however; the real reason for the "gun ownership" meme is simple and entirely different.
Without guns, the U.S. would be Canada with warm weather. And not even the most dedicated left-wing symp would want that.
08-12-1999, 12:35 AM
Oh, come on! I hear that Canada is a paradise. The citizens need only to blow a whistle or ring a bell and the government (well funded by high taxes) comes running to solve their every problem.
Being held up at gun point? The government will stop the buillet.
Don't want to work? Here comes a check!
Break your leg? The gov't can mend it.
Why the hell should the goddam lousy good-for-nothing citizens be allowed to make decisions or have rights anyway? THey would just abuse them. Only government officials are trustworthy and moral.
08-12-1999, 01:27 AM
[[Are you people out of your minds? YOu WANT the government to take more of your money away? How about this, why don't you just go give your money to people who need it? ]] Zambesi
Or we can, as a democratic society, vote to use some of our maoney for certain services, some of which (gasp!) may benefit the indigent disproportionately. Dadblast that democracy, huh?
[[Who ever heard of such a preposterous idea as a merit based economy. ]]
It would certainly be relatively novel in this country.
To clarify on a couple of things that have come up:
1) The US annually finishes in the top ten of the UN standard of living report; last year it was 4th, the year before (I recall) 7th. Cananda was 1st both years.
2) There are LOTs of countries where you'll find greater collisions of wealth and poverty than in Miami. I've seen shanty-towns literally in the shadow of high-rises. Bear in mind that 75% of US poor have either a microwave or a VCR; whereas a large part of the world lives on <$1 a day.
3) While I myself am somewhat liberal in my attitudes toward wealth redistribution, several of my friends/family are religious-right types who are FIRMLY against high taxes and welfare but who DO donate to povery-related charities. The issue for them is one of their wanting to have the choice of where the money goes, not the govt. Do not make the mistake of assuming another person's politics must be because they are a bad person.
"It all started with marbles in school..."
08-12-1999, 09:28 AM
BI said "Or we can, as a democratic society, vote to use some of our maoney for certain services, some of which (gasp!) may benefit the indigent disproportionately. Dadblast that democracy, huh?"
Surely it is in public interest to have certain social welfare programs. I am a proponent of state funded mental health care, for instance. THe questions are:
a) what should be the amount of public assistance?
b) is Big Government a good way to solve social ills?
08-13-1999, 01:06 PM
akgrhrts cautions:If we don't, there will be some rather "inflammatory" statements in here pretty soon in regard to the OP and the title of this thread.
Oh, come now. Do you seriously think that I wrote those things, and it never once occured to me, "Gee, I might upset matt_mcl or sunbear with this"?
08-13-1999, 01:51 PM
Well, it certainly brings a tear to my eye when people who would gross over $60,000 per year can't eat or buy adequate shelter because of all the damn taxes.
Well let's see. 60K / 12 = 5k per month.
Now 5K * .27(fed, state, ss, etc) = 1350 or $3,650 for other things. Now, let's say that person gives 10% tithe to church or 500. That leaves 3150, for the other purchases. Now let's let the worker have a 120k house, not much in most areas, at 8% for 30 years. Including prop taxes it probably comes to about $1,000 so there is $2,150 left. Now let's say they have one new car payment of $400. That leaves $1,750. Utilities of $300, a bit low from most I work with, leaves $1,450. Gas for work takes another 100 so, $1,350 left. Food about $400 a month leaves 950. Take out IRAs of 334 for two leaves 616. Take $200 a month for college for the kids and you have 416 a month. Paying 200 for a student loan leaves 216 a month. Take 200 a month for clothes, movies, extras and you have $16 a month.
Are any of these outrageous numbers? I know one can live off of less, because my wife and daughter do, but these numbers are not far off and Atlanta is a reasonable place to live in terms of costs. Yes, these people can eat and have shelter, but when I work to provide these things, I also want to enjoy them.
If I and others cannot buy computers, TVs, cars, furniture, college, etc. then the people that make them will lose their jobs, then they will not be able to buy things and others will lose their jobs.
I do not mind paying for streets, bridges, law enforcement, helping those who have come upon hard times, but when someone is too lazy to get off their duff and get a job, then I have a problem.
I am not saying that we should go back to the frontier days, where you worked or you starved, but as the saying goes if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime. I am tired of eating chicken, while there are welfare people eating steak.
08-13-1999, 01:55 PM
BTW, maybe you want this, but I have talked to a co-worker of mine who came here from the former Soviet Union. In his opinion, we are definitely heading toward the same type of government as they had. Once the gov't decides that anyone making over 60K is making too much and should give the rest to the gov't, not too far away at our current pace, then there will be no incentive to do more than the minnimum.
Gov't takes care of us. Let's give it what it wants. Not for me. Let me excell if I can or fail trying.
08-13-1999, 02:20 PM
Re-distribution seems fair and charitable, as long as the the rich put up with it. However, in the long run, the high earners, whose taxes support the government, may leave the country. My ex-boss moved to Bermuda, which has no income tax, and started an insurance company. The company and its employees have earned many, many millons, of which the US governmnet got zero.
08-13-1999, 02:29 PM
Oh, Ak, I'm not upset in the least, merely convinced of your lack of charity.
08-13-1999, 04:14 PM
That's Ak, not ak, you refer to?
08-13-1999, 11:02 PM
I am tired of eating chicken, while there are welfare people eating steak.
I realise this is an exageration (though if it isn't, then it's misleading because the steak-eaters are obviously abusing the system horribly). Still, being on welfare sucks. I've been on it twice, both in summers when I couldn't find a job to save my life; when I got a job, I quit welfare. Total time collecting the money: six months all together. The first time I got $200 a month, the second time $450. That's not enough to live on by itself even if you're perfectly scrupulous.
While there are abusers of welfare (and of any system where someone perceives they can have something for free), they're simply not the majority. My father is a senior civil servant in charge of distributing welfare. In the twenty years he's worked in that area, it's been the same: a minority who are stuck on welfare for one reason or another (alcoholic, junkie, retarded, crazy, single mother), and a constant churn of people who are on it for shorter or longer periods, until something changes for them.
In short, welfare generally fulfills its primary goal of keeping a lot of people from starving to death who otherwise would. The image of the indolent laying about collecting checks is anecdotal evidence at best, and is generally a false picture of welfare recipients. To the Canadian government's embarassment, it was discovered by the press that some naval ensigns were collecting welfare because welfare departments in Canada will make up the shortfall between your salary and what welfare would pay, and the Canadian Navy was paying its ensigns that badly.
Criticize welfare programs all you want: I can't think of a single one with a good work retraining program. Just don't mistake conservative and libertarian rhetoric about 'doing for yourself' with the reality of the situation.
08-14-1999, 12:29 AM
Dang! Has anyone here read "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451"? This sounds more like a discussion about the role of govenment in our lives than yet another debate about the ownership of firearms. For that I am grateful. Should we think of moving this to a thread with a more appropriate name? If we don't, there will be some rather "inflammatory" statements in here pretty soon in regard to the OP and the title of this thread.
08-14-1999, 09:07 AM
A couple of thoughts.
1) I work for a very large company that is greatly involved in the welfare to work program nationally. We have hired many welfare people. We pay a good bit above minimum wage. But it is hard work. A number of these people quit.
2) A friend of mine's father lives in a gov't owned apartment that assists those who do not make enough to afford other places to live. Now this is sometimes necessary. These people must have a job of some sort. But they all must be limited means people. He has personally seen these people have big screen TVs, VCRs, Game players(nintendo, sega), eating McDonalds, etc. They have all that I have and more and have cheaper rent.
3) Our company also is greatly involved in United Way. Near christmas UW gives away clothes and toys to people. Other times they give food and other things. There are people pulling up in very new Ford Explorers and getting mad that the food and toys are not delivered to their doors. That they actually have to go back to collect them.
4) Another friend has siblings that live on welfare. They can work, but they choose not to.
I am not saying that all people are abusing the system. It is indeed warranted. But it is abused and I am tired of having to pay my hard earned money to people that are abusing the system.
Why is it that the rich are the evil,hated rich, when they built this country and keep people employeed to keep it going.
08-14-1999, 09:52 AM
This is anecdotal, but may seem informative if you ignore the lack of evidence.
In the eighties, the elected government where my father works was conservative. They cut welfare rates and doubled the size of welfare fraud department. The number of recipients increased, as did the amount of fraud.
After ten years of conservative direction, a liberal government was elected. They increased rates, cut the welfare fraud department to nothing, and heavily increased the number of caseworkers administering the program on a personal level to recipients. Fraud and the number of recipients both decreased sharply.
08-16-1999, 09:53 AM
Time Magazine reports thatthe number of welfare recipients has decreased by 50%. However they also report increased numbers of people below the poverty line.
"Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail" --Lao Tzu
08-16-1999, 11:54 PM
akgrhrts: That's Ak, not ak, you refer to?
You are absolutely right; I was indeed referring to Akatsukami. I apologize for the mixup.
Re welfare fraud: There's a legal maxim, Abusus non tollit usum - abuse is not an argument against use. You're absolutely right: some people do defraud the welfare system. Some people also make crank phone calls, send mail bombs, travel across country by plane on criminal business, push people in front of subways, etc. Should we gut all of those systems too?
08-23-1999, 11:32 AM
StrTrkr777, you left out insurance. Auto = $60-100/month for 1 car, health=150-300/mo @, home ins=30-150/mo, and lets not forget the real amount of $$ going to the man, all those bills have lots of taxes in them. Lets see: just on a cell phone there are Fed univ. svc/regchg= .62 + MD state grs rcpt tx surch = .64 + Fed excise tax = .67 + state and local tax (MD)= $1.09 + .10 MD 911 surcharge + .50 Montgomery county 911 surcharge. My total bill is only $24.52, and 17% on the actual phone bill is for the man. Same with the utilities, electricity, natural gas, gasoline, water, clothes, a hamburger...- still beter than Canada though :) except for maybe the fishing
08-23-1999, 02:16 PM
Let's see, I make $100, $28 goes to Unca Sam. I want to buy a tank of gas, that's $10 bucks for gas, $4 for Sam. A pair of jeans, 7% sales tax, plus the tax the MFg pays on the profit (which is built into my cost) for Employment tax, income tax, tariffs, etc, $20 for the jeans, $20 for the taxes.....
Let's see, for $24 bucks worth of stuff I have to make about $82 ($40 + $14 + $28 = $82)
I'm going to go buy some ammo.
08-23-1999, 04:28 PM
Regarding the 60,000/year has no money folks:
Seems to me that youíve described somebody who has it pretty good. First of all, this fellow deducts more from his taxable income than many people make in a year:
4000 Interest on mortgage (estimate)
5000 State + local taxes (Atlanta area, source: 1999 New York Times Almanac)
Total: $19,008 in tax deductable expenses. This is conservative, I think. Many families do not even make this amount. Minimum wage is a paltry $5.15/hour. (40*5.15*50=10,712/year. Double this for a 2 income households) These are the people who are getting hit with a huge tax burden, not 60 grand folks.
This guy saves 334/month? $4000/year? Gives $6,000/year to charity? This seems to be $10,000 in disposable income. If there truly are people who give more money to their church than they pay for their car, it is no wonder Jim and Tammy Faye lived so well. That is a HUGE self imposed expense.
I also thought that you were trying to prove that a $60,000/year wage earner canít afford adequate housing. Perhaps my standards are lower than those of the average person, but a $120,000 house sounds like adequate shelter. Maybe if this person saves his pennies he can afford to put another wing on the house.
Please explain to folks making minimum wage with no health care, no car, and a cheap apartment how hard the fellow making $60,000 has it.
Want a sensible tax break proposal?: Raise the top income for the 15% bracket from $21,000 to $28,100. (reduce accordingly for joint filing). EVERY taxpayer making over $28,100 in taxable income saves $910.00 and all those making up $21,000 to $28,100 saves accordingly.
Another: Lower the bottom rate from 15% to 12%, lower the 28% to 25%. Anyone making $22,100 saves $663. Anyone making $53,500 and over saves $1,429 + $663= $2,092.50. People often forget that a tax break for lower incomes is also a break for higher incomes. Therefore, a tax break like the 10% proposed which cuts all rates by 10% actually gives a much larger cut to higher income groups than to the lower income groups who actually need it because it becomes cumulative.
Also: Lower the Social Security tax from 14% to 10% and get rid of the cap.
"Shoplifting is a victimless crime. Like punching someone in the dark." -Nelson Muntz.
08-24-1999, 09:03 AM
Want a sensible tax break proposal?: Raise the top income for the 15% bracket from $21,000 to $28,100. (reduce accordingly for joint filing). EVERY taxpayer making over $28,100 in taxable income saves $942.00 and all those making up $21,000 to $28,100 saves accordingly.
Another: Lower the bottom rate from 15% to 12%, lower the 28% to 25%. Anyone making $22,100 saves $663. Anyone making $53,500 and over saves $942 + $663 = $1,605. People often forget that a tax break for lower incomes is also a break for higher incomes.
--Also, I apologize for the run-on sentences, though run-on sentences are unforgivable.
08-25-1999, 02:49 AM
Whatever you do, keep the capital gains rate the same as the rate for "ordinary income."
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.