No, I think we are well aware that our taxes go for lots of things - however, when spending is cut the poor, without much of a lobby, seem to suffer first.
Plus, you are well aware that if we depended on charity to feed the poor, the poor would starve. There are also efficiencies in the government doing it. I donate to food banks, since I think my local one does a lot of very direct good, but they are far less efficient than the distribution of food stamps. There are poor people near groceries and not near food banks, after all.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Plus, you are well aware that if we depended on charity to feed the poor, the poor would starve.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not aware of that. Do you think that if the US government stopped feeding the poor that the citizens of the US would allow citizens to literally starve and charities would do nothing to prevent this, or would be unable to prevent it? Would YOU just sit by and do nothing?
Some, happily. Darwinian laws of survival and all, you know. Plus inefficiency–“They’re not OUR targeted poor. They’re someone else’s problem.”
Sure. Charitable organizations are as corrupt as anything else, diverting funds intended to reach their targets to the organziation’s operating funds (or worse), and lack a mandate to do what the government’s JOB is: to distribute funds where the citizens have transparantly voted they should go.
Probably. How would I know that people are starving somewhere I don’t live? Because some scamster I don’t know tells me they are, and I would believe him why? Meanwhile, people starve.
I skipped over this before, but I want to correct your error.
The US Constitution, Article 4, Section 3-
So Congress is specifically authorized to act regarding the purchase of territory for the United States.
Most of the Louisiana Purchase was funded by issuing bonds (cite).
The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 -
prr is talking about it - he alleges that people don’t own everything they own.
But I specifically deny that government has any more (or less) claim on money that is earned thru investments than it does on any other sort. If I earned it by taking a risk, I own it just as much as if I got it for digging ditches.
The government, when it acts legitimately, may claim enough of its citizens’ money to fund the Constitutionally allowed functions of government. Once those functions are funded, the claim of government ends. It does not continue because I won my dough at the blackjack table, it does not continue because I bought Microsoft stock and hung onto it. it does not continue because I make five times what my neighbor does. The moral claim of government to my money is limited only to its need to fund its legitimate - that is to say, Constitutional - functions.
Which is not to say that we cannot have progressive taxation, But that progressiveness is not founded on any belief that someone who earned his money does not own it - any of it. But the idea of liberals that governments know better how to spend the money than the person who earned it does is not a legitimate basis for tax policy. Add to that the usual dose of “no fair - he got more than me” and you get the liberal drive to use tax policy as a means of social engineering.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Some, happily. Darwinian laws of survival and all, you know. Plus inefficiency–“They’re not OUR targeted poor. They’re someone else’s problem.”
[/QUOTE]
Certainly. About the same percentage as would be happy about shooting all of the ‘rich’ and taking all their wealth in the name of The People…IOW, not very many. Most people would fall somewhere in the middle and would make an effort to ensure that US citizens (and especially their children) don’t starve. Let’s get real here…Americans ALREADY donate massive amounts to charity towards preventing starvation in OTHER countries. If the federal government stopped feeding Americans poor tomorrow through some effort to cut the budget, what it might mean is that instead of sending large donations abroad the donations would just stay here instead. Arguably that would be really bad for the people in other countries who need those donations, but hopefully other countries would step up. The EU also makes large donations to the same causes.
If you are just going to go off on these fantasies of yours then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Try to at least keep it within the realm of reality, please.
How do you know today whether the charities you give money to are scams or not? Or do you never give any money to any charities, saying essentially ‘I paid my taxes…go see the government if you need anything’??
I’m sorry, tell me what I’m saying that’s a fantasy? I give a small amount, mainly to charities whose financial structure I have researched exhaustively, and would prefer that the disadvantaged’s needs be addressed primarily through the government, over which I have a little oversight.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I’m sorry, tell me what I’m saying that’s a fantasy?
[/QUOTE]
Because the fact that some are corrupt doesn’t equate to all or even most of the rest being so. You are trying to paint some sort of fantasy picture that if the government stopped giving out food stamps or WIC that the majority of charities would just be scams while people starved to death in the streets of America. That’s pure fantasy, plain and simple.
So, instead of being able to give money to charities that you can research, that you can follow and watch (if you so choose) you want to give the money to the government, over which you have little oversight?? To me that seems irrational, but I guess if it works for you that’s fine. Personally, I think that directed charities are better able to focus than the heavy hand of the government, especially on the local level. You probably know more about the needs of your community than some paper pusher in Washington, and you would be better able to track your money and what it’s doing (or not doing) than the rather vague way the government takes your money in taxes and then hopefully some of it eventually gets to the people who need it.
But really, we aren’t going to have the government stop assisting because the majority of Americans WANT those programs, so it’s a moot point. I don’t think it would be the end of the world, personally, and actually I believe that poor people would be better off with private and community charities and perhaps state or community assistance than the big hammers approach of the federal government (certainly I think it’s fantasy that people would starve in the US if the federal government stopped giving aid).
That’s hardly “the exchange of labour for money” is it now?
You mean “lone thief sneaking about looking to steal a portion of the common weal”, right?
Only if he doesn’t mind me also coming to live in “his” valley, chopping down “his” trees and killing “his” deer. And what if the rest of us would rather the valley stayed pristine, the trees uncut and the deer unslaughtered?
I do they would starve, and historically did starve, before the government took some responsiblilty for acftively promoting nutrition in the last century. More to the point, I think you’d resent my referring to your beliefs on this subject as a “pure fantasy”–I just think you’re misinformed, and would be glad to try to inform you better on the subject if you wished to have a civil conversation. Plainly by referring to disagreeing views in such overtly hostile terms, you’re not looking for a civil conversation.
Here is the first site I found searching on the controversy about the purchase. Notice your quote says Congress - but Jefferson bought it as an executive act. One might argue that territory refers to existing territories, not new ones. I’m not disputing its constitutionality, but justifying it as you did is a kind of a stretch. The Constitution certainly does not give the president this explicit power.
Ah, then 100% of the budget is fine with you - what parts of it are not constitutionally allowed? Maybe you mean constitutionally mandated? In that case, the Louisiana Purchase - allowed but not mandated - would be illegitimate in your eyes.
Eminent domain does not imply that the person whose property is being taken does not own it easier, but it is a far cry from robbery. Every penny spent is authorized by Congress. We all may disagree on whether the bills were too big or two small. But calling taxation robbery is like calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme - it just confuses the weak minded Tea Partiers and others, does nothing to contribute to the discussion, and leads to the current situation where taxes can only be ratcheted down, no matter who gets hurt. That’s extremism in my opinion.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I do they would starve, and historically did starve, before the government took some responsiblilty for acftively promoting nutrition in the last century.
[/QUOTE]
And your thinking stems from what exactly? For my part I merely point at the tons of food, medicine and resources that private charities dispense EVERY YEAR to countries around the world, and point out that logically if the government stopped providing support to the poor in the US tomorrow (something with a vanishingly small chance of happening) that those resources would simply be diverted here.
And your support for your assertions is…?
I’m sure you do, however as you have yet to back your fantasies up with even a semblance of logic your opinion of me or of my positions is, well, of militant unconcern. If you wish to have a civil conversation then I ask again…keep it real and stop going off on these flights of fancy. I promise to take seriously anything you say that is serious. But when you posit that a majority of citizens in the US would just blithely allow fellow citizens to starve it’s hard to take you seriously.
And by your use of hyperbole and fantasy handwringing you clearly aren’t looking for a serious discussion. In fact, as you admitted, your OP was a smoke screen, and really what you wanted to talk about was the evil Republicans who don’t want to increase the debt limit. Well, have at it…I mean, there just aren’t enough threads on that subject so clearly it needs to be discussed here as well.
Your rosy view of human nature is not supported by history. Examples - the Irish potato famine, Dickensian London, Africa today. None of us would let a person starve if they were doing it right in front of our faces, but people usually starve conveniently hidden away.
And people would donate - but would they do it to the levels government is spending now? Did the rich donate all or most of their tax cuts to charity?
But thanks for an excellent example of the basic libertarian fallacy. Since you would - or would want to - personally perform the jobs government does today, you think government doesn’t have to do them. It is exactly the same as saying the FDA isn’t necessary because none of us would take a drug we didn’t research, would we?
But are you really going to give to charity instead of putting money into your retirement account, to mention a good thing you could do with it. Would everyone? People are hungry and homeless today, so where is the outpouring of money to solve the problem? There are saints among us, no doubt, but you can’t set policy assuming everyone is a saint. If you do, people will starve.
A quick calculation shows we spend about $70 billion a year on this program, backed up here.
This link says spending on world food aid is $600 million. That probably includes government aid, but even if it was purely from private charity, it is less than 1% of the needed budget for the US, and again I’m assuming all this aid comes from the US.
Even with this aid, 5 million people starve to death every year, which would surely increase if we decreased food aid.
So, the numbers say your libertarian solution is a delusion.
I’d rather not discuss factual positions with someone starting out by asserting that I’m fantasizing my position, thanks. When you’re ready to discuss the virtues and vices of federal aid to seriously malnourished Americans (particularly those programs begun under FDR and LBJ) instead of dismissing them as my personal fantasy, I’ll be happy to engage with you. Until that point, have fun asserting what you like and dismissing what you don’t like.
And we’re back to the blind assertion that libertarianism means everyone dies. Kudos.
The USDA says the SNAP program costs about $35billion making it about 1% of the Federal budget.
This site shows that about 6% of the federal budget is spent on assistance for the poor, about the same as was spent interest, and a quarter of what is spent on the military.
You know what else we spend more on? The War on Drugs. This guy claims the US spent $42 Billion per year to fight marijuana, that’s $7million more than they spent feeding the hungry. Although I guess technically all those 829,627 arrested for marijuana were subsequently fed by the government.
Increasing taxes on the rich won’t actually help any of the people you claim you want to help in any meaningful way.
If feeding the hungry is important to you, there are far better ways solve it than by funneling money through the federal government.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
So, the numbers say your libertarian solution is a delusion.
[/QUOTE]
If it wasn’t you and I didn’t know better (I think highly of you, even though we often disagree) I’d say you were deliberately trying to be deceptive. You know that American’s give billions to charity each year, surly? From here (it’s an older article but I seriously doubt it’s dropped substantially since 2006):
Granted, not all of that money goes to food, but that’s, you know, because it doesn’t have too since the government is currently handling that. However, it’s hardly beyond the realm of speculation that if that changes that where and how those billions (hundreds of billions) in charitable contributions would be spent. If you really, truly, seriously think that Americans would simply go on exactly as before and allow citizens of the US to starve, well…then perhaps my value for you as a poster has been misplaced.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I’d rather not discuss factual positions with someone starting out by asserting that I’m fantasizing my position, thanks. When you’re ready to discuss the virtues and vices of federal aid to seriously malnourished Americans (particularly those programs begun under FDR and LBJ) instead of dismissing them as my personal fantasy, I’ll be happy to engage with you. Until that point, have fun asserting what you like and dismissing what you don’t like.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as you have STILL provided absolutely zero to back up your fantasies, your dismissal of my pretty much fact based position is, again, of militant unconcern to me. You are free to do as you like and believe what you like, especially since there is just about an absolute zero chance that the government assistance for food for the poor is ever going to be removed and it’s a rather silly point you are frantically fantasizing about in any case.
I have to admit that I find this entire liberal mindset that Americans would let fellow Americans starve to death in these times if the government wasn’t out there doing the right thing for us extremely distasteful and even offensive. As if the majority of Americans are really bad and stupid people, and only the good government can do the right thing. Fuck that. It’s fantasy that Americans would let fellow Americans starve if not for the fucking government. Americans donate huge amounts even WITH the fucking taxes that also provide support for the poor in America. Assuming that taking away that government support would either have Americans donating hundreds of billions to charities that would just go on as they were (and let folks starve) or stop giving to charities is FUCKING FANTASY.
No? Well then instead of whining about me calling your position fantasy BACK IT THE FUCK UP. Or tuck tail and bolt. Which ever you prefer.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Your rosy view of human nature is not supported by history. Examples - the Irish potato famine, Dickensian London, Africa today.
[/QUOTE]
So, in your opinion the US is either going to become a completely dysfunctional entity ruled by warlords and roving gangs of thugs (as in Africa today, at least the starving parts…that we give huge amounts of aid too btw), we are going to be taken over by a hostile power that allows large segments of the population to starve due to a massive crop failure of the only staple (we only have one, right) that most of the population subsists on, or we will go back to the good old days of the British Empire? Seriously?
Yeah, human history is replete with human suffering…and your Euro buddies were some of the worst perpetrators of this sort of thing in the past. In fact, look at your examples. You could add Maoist China or Communist Russia in the early days to your list as well. What are your examples of Americans allowing large numbers of Americans starve to death when food was available? I’m sure there ARE examples, but I can’t think of any on the scales of historical examples from Europe. Even during the Depression and BEFORE the government stepped in to do the right thing since the citizens were too callous to do it I don’t recall large instances of starvation in the US. But feel free to give some examples from the days of pre-government aid to the poor of large numbers of Americans starving while their fellow citizens just let it happen.
Seriously? How would it be hidden? Unless we go back to 18th century UK, how would you hide it? If a fucking kitten is tossed out on the highway you have a hundred thousand people up in arms and voting on the internet that the person who did it should be shot, or at least called really bad names. So…how are you going to hide men, women and children FUCKING STARVING TO DEATH IN THE US???
American’s donated nearly $300 billion (that’s billion with a ‘b’) to various charities in 2007 (up from my earlier cite)…and that’s NOW, when the government takes care of so much and people already feel they are taxed enough…plus feel that the government is taking care of things so they don’t have too. If they knew the government wasn’t taking care of it then do you seriously contend they would be LESS likely to donate? Would you be less likely to donate? I already donate money, time and effort to local charities and my wife does more…I’m inclined to think that if the government stopped helping out I’d be more inclined to donate, not less. You? Would you just sit there and ignore CHILDREN STARVING???
And thank you for the excellent example of liberal thinking. It was…eye opening.