The concept of negative rights is unusual?
The poor pay state taxes, local taxes, sales tax, property taxes,gas taxes, alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, licences and fees . The poor do not get away with out contributing. There is such a slamming of the poor on this board .
Most of those are state or city taxes. The federal portion of the gas tax goes to the roads on which we drive. As for the cigarette and alcohol tax I have no idea how that money is earmarked. I assume the cig tax is for education and the increase cost of care for those who smoke.
So the people who pay medicare and social security taxes do not get to elect the folks who decide on social security and medicare benefits? It is relatively clear that medicare and social security benefits will have to be adjusted sometime in the near future, should that adjustment be determined by folks who were elected by the top half of society? I guess that’s ONE way to get rid of them altogether but still…
Really? Then what is the source of rights? I’m not saying that all rights emanate from the government but it is a pretty narrow definition of rights you have there. Rights are more than the freedom from interference by government.
“you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you” BY THE GOVERNMENT
“you have a right to vote” and the government will protect that right for you.
“you have a right to be secure in your person and possessions” You are not being protected FROM the government, you are being protected BY the government
“you have a right to a public education” and government will collect money from the community to pay for it.
and coming soon,
“you have a right to health care”
These rights can be taken away by the government (for example the right to a trial was taken away from an American citizen during the Bush years) and sometimes they SHOULD be taken away (like the right to own slaves).
I don’t know what “doped” means. I guess I was just wrong.
[/QUOTE]
I thought the term “doped” meant that ignorance has been successfully fought. I get doped all the time when I wade into a debate and get convinced through the process that my original position was incorrect.
You do realize that whatever happens in November is a referendum on the economy not the Democratic policies right?
Well then they should stop being so poor.
Heck, why stop with voting, why not just sell citizenship to the highest bidder. Say, hundred thousand for a green card, couple million for outright citizenship?
This ‘who should be allowed to vote’ argument is a funny justification for giving rich people a new tax cut. Is it the intention of the GOP that the rich should be entirely disenfranchised, along with everybody else?
I’ve already stated that taking away voting rights is not a feasable option. Nonetheless, as I stated, we do not vote on individual spending bills as citizens. If we did then it would make sense that everyone who contributes to SS and medicare should have a say.
The attorney is provided to protect you FROM the government. You have no right to an attorney…just the right to a fair trial. Attorney is provided to protect you from abuse from your government. Ask anyone who has been sued if they have been given an attorney.
No, voting is a privelege that can be taken away. Ask felons in any number of states.
You need to bone up on your knowledge of amendments. The 4th amendment clearly is to protect people FROM their government. Here…I’ll quote it for ya:
No, you do not. I’ve already covered both of these. You cannot force a person to work for another. This is not a right but slavery. If people CHOOSE not to provide you with what you belive is a right, can the government force them to do the work at gunpoint?
There was no right to own slaves. There was a right to own property and, unfortunately, the term “property” was bastardized.
You are free to believe whatever you wish. That is your RIGHT.
Five million, if they want to vote.
Some question the GOP’s motives here:
Have the ever met a tax cut they didn’t like before?
If the poor receive more in the way of subsidies then taxes paid then who is paying the tax?
I don’t suppose you’d be willing to supply specific examples of societies that have successfully taxed themselves into prosperity?
(I couldn’t help but notice you mentioned “persistent evidence to the contrary” but failed to cite any of said evidence.)
I believe friend Dan is referring to the redundant evidence of stupidity and/or malice.
Sure - America, circa 1950.
That’s such a weird way of looking at things to me. “The present system” that allows Gates to make a lot is dependent I suppose on having a functioning democracy and relatively free market, which are protected by the military, but “the present system” is not the same thing as the federal bureaucracy. How has the sudden existence of 1690 Department of Transportation employees making over $170k (from one employee a couple of years ago) http://current.com/159284c enabled Gates to make money? It hasn’t, the federal government doesn’t create or run the markets, at best it protects them, and history shows that they could be protected well enough for Gates to do well with a smaller federal government.
Your pleasure hasn’t been as great as Gates’s, nor has mine, because, frankly, Gates did a better job than you or I did of convincing people to buy his wares at a premium price. But it’s not as though money rained down upon him from some federal raincloud that he’s now obliged to reimburse.
No, his money rained down on him, to a considerable degree, by chicanery, cunning, and ruthless competition. To be fair, he has exhibited a remarkable humanity since he got married, which demonstrates the healing power of nookie, Goddess be praised.
I mean (putting aside chicanery, where I’m just not aware of the details of what you’re characterizing/referring to – having his mom use her influence? Or something else?), yeah, but isn’t that kind of what we signed up for with the market economy?
Read one of the books that came out at the time of the Microsoft antitrust trial if you want some examples of chicanery.
Here is another example, post-Bill and perhaps more the fault of Intel. (Read the Dell settlement articles lately?)
Most are that stupid. The others are evil.
We’ve already had a discussion in this thread about rights; whether they are provided by the government or whether they exist naturally and must be protected from the government.
I don’t think a free marketplace is a right. While I won’t attempt to justify the salaries of DoT employees, consider things like patents and trademarks. Where would Microsoft be without them? How often has the government flexed its diplomatic muscles by threatening trade sanctions against countries that turn a blind eye to pirated software?
Upthread, Magiver questioned whether the poor receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. The government has spent millions protecting the interests of Microsoft, which has enabled Bill Gates to make billions. If he benefits more than most, let him pay more than most.
That fantasy will require a cite.