Excerpt from this article:
Questions:
-
Is this true? How can I find out if it is?
-
If this is true, WTF? What can I do about it?
-
Is our government evil?
-
Can anyone justify why this plan is morally correct?
:rolleyes:
It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. “mugging the poor and helpless” does not equal taking less than you would have liked to from others. Argue all you want but taking less of someone’s money than you would have liked to does not equal stealing.
Shagnasty
Registered Libertarian
Just leave me be. Worry about yourself
True enough. A Libertarian just steps over the homeless people sleeping on the sidewall. A Republican stops to lecture them about how its all thier own fault.
1.) I would say the actual legislation would be somewhere in the Congressional record or some other source. What you’ve cited sounds to me more like an editorial than a straight news piece, so I would question its premises.
2.) Write your Congress critters. Circulate petitions. Organize demonstrations, but avoid stupid shit like blocking traffic with “die-ins” or wishing a million Moghadishu’s on your fellow Americans. Convince others like you to be sure they vote in 2004. Yeah, the game may be crooked, but it’s the only one in town.
3.) Probably
4.) I would say check out National Review On-Line. I’m sure their columnists will offer some reasons why the proposed budget is a good thing.
The NY Times tend to be pretty reliable. This site might have the information you’re looking for.
Write your Congresspeople? I wish I knew what to do.
Of course, a generalization/over-simplification like that about such an amorphous entity is never going to be true. However, I have come to believe over the years that there are actual evil people who hold power in the U.S. government.
There are some people who believe that helping the poor is not the proper role for the government. They start from the premise that poor people are poor by choice. It’s a philosophy that’s pretty hard to make sense of.
That is true enough. And a liberal does what? Stages a “protest” in a nice city park so that he she or he can party down with like minded friends with nothing to show for it but a clear conscience and a pair of muddy Birkenstocks.
If taking away free lunches for poor children isn’t stealing, I don’t know what is.
It seems like the least powerful citizens in this country are being asked to sacrifice the most. Should we be cutting the budget like this AND be giving out a $1 trillion tax cut? This doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m willing to hear out any reasonable explanations. If I don’t get any, I’ll be left to conclude that our government is evil.
Um it isn’t their money. If I buy you lunch every day until I decide I don’t want to anymore I haven’t done anything wrong. You were eating at my expense and by my good will, you had no right to the food. You may, rightly, think it sucks that you ain’t getting a free lunch anymore but you aren’t, and never were, entitled to it.
It is safe to say that a NYT editorial is going to be devoid of fact, and chock full of leftist bullshit. This particular editorial seems to be par for the course.
When I heard that the war was starting, the first thing I did was put on my cowboy boots, shout “Yeehaw!” and shoot round after round from my revolvers into the air, because I’ve just been waiting for my chance to “assault society’s weakest elements” and “mug the poor and helpless.” I could take what I got from shaking down the poor and re-invest in Big Oil so my corporate buddies would profit too. Then I’d raze some woodland for the hell of it.
Seriously, though, I would first ask, what exactly is being given “unstintingly” to the rich? Are tax dollars being put into the pockets of the rich, or are existing taxes being eased? In this case, the rich are being given nothing- rather, less is being taken away.
From the examples cited in the article, nothing is being taken away from the poor- rather, fewer tax dollars will be spent on them. Existing programs are being reduced, and, I’m guessing, this will make the room that allows Congress to ease existing tax burdens currently imposed on the rich.
So, from the info I currently have, it seems that the rich are having less taken from them, and the poor are having less given to them. No one is “giving” money to the rich or “taking” money from the poor. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter altogether.
And, since it’s an editorial from the New York Times, my first guess would be that this isn’t exactly… hmmm… Fair and Balanced. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Are you saying the NY Times is leftist? :dubious:
OK, no more free lunches. Those snot-nosed five year olds aren’t worth the boloney and cheese sandwiches they pilfer from the Blessed American Tax Payer everyday.
But what about veterens? Ya know, like the folks who will be coming back from Iraq, supposedly preserving freedom for you and me. Do they not deserve benefits? And what about your grandparents? Do they not deserve their Medicaid? Or should we just take people out back and shoot them once they reach 70?
I hope one day you wake up and find yourself disabled and unable to work. Don’t come looking for help then, The Tim. I think it would benefit society to just leave your sorry-ass out in the field to die.
It’s not the government itself that is evil. But some of our leaders and their corporate cronies are. I think they are gutting the Constitution by interfering with the influence of the will of the people.
BTW, has Ken Lay been indicted yet?
How much does Medicare pay for expensive medications needed by the elderly and the disabled?
Which receives more funding – the social welfare system or corporate welfare system?
Is it true that 1% of the citizens have over 50% of the wealth?
Yes.
Also, what the media and opponents of spending cuts typically refer to as “cuts” are quite often “cuts” in the RATE OF GROWTH of a program. I.e. the program actually receives an increase in the next fiscal budget (and the year after, etc.,), but the increase is less than last year’s.
Mind you, I’m not syaing that this is what “cut” refers to in every single case, but it often has this meaning.
- Government is by its very nature evil. It’s just sometimes the least of several (or myriad) evils.
Originally posted by The Tim:
Why don’t we illustrate the stupidity of your comment by taking away some of these public roads you’re driving on. And let’s just cease and desist with all the public schools. Oh yeah, let’s cut those useless police and fire departments out while we’re at it. None of these things are entitled to us. The government gives us these things. So we shouldn’t whine when they are taken from us. We didn’t have to have them in the first place, right?
I love that kind of logic.
Yeah, I can tell you’re an avid reader of the NY Times, Gajin. :rolleyes:
It’s easy to say this isn’t fair and balanced. PROVE IT.
Originally posted by Gajin:
Here’s an idea–although I admit it may be crazy. Why don’t we worry about easing the tax burden after this war is over? Better yet, why don’t we burden those who can afford it the most? Do you really think Buffy and Skip Billionare will miss a meal if we continue with the current tax system? Will Johnny and Suzy Broke-Ass lose a meal if we cut foodstamps?
I can’t shed any tears if Buffy and Skip have to wait an extra month before they buy another million dollar sports car. But I do worry what happens to people who are already struggling just to put food on the table. If that makes me a commie-pinko, so be it.
And are the poor really burdening the tax system? Surely the war is much more expensive than what they are taking. Why don’t we cut that?
I call bullshit!
No. They start from the premise that helping the poor is not the proper role for the government. Whether or not the poor are poor by choice, or by no fault of their own, those same people will believe that helping the poor is not the role for the government. I’m not saying I necessarily subscribe to this, but your characterization is inaccurate.