“I believe that this is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the argument – one side gains satisfaction out of helping those who are less fortunate. The other side does not.”
Wow this is quite a generalization. So far in this post I have asked DIRECT questions. I have not put a label on anyone. So the following quote from AFX now has generalized me as one who does not gain any satisfaction helping those who are less fortunate. That is quite a statement afx114. So the fact that I choose to make charitable contributions directly to organizations that specialize in that field rather then the federal government obviously is lost on you.
Is your above statement really the way you feel? I just want to make sure because honestly it is a pretty unintelligent generalization.
Again, I am going to keep asking the same questions until someone answers them. If every post is simply met by a retort or a generalization then so be it. I guess that is my answer. So again…
Why is it that helping those less fortunate is limited to helping those in the US. What is the difference between the poor in Darfur and the poor in China, or Serbia, or Iraq or India or Detroit? Why is the common moral cause only limited to the USA poor? Is the goal to make everyone in the US to be at the same income level? If not then where or what is the goal? Is there a more specific answer then to halp those less fortunate then me?
Where is the cutoff? Is it 250k a year? Is it 75k a year? Isn’t this sort of arbitrary?
************************************************
Back to my other post.
Why hasn’t anyone addressed the fact that indeed I will pay a non trivial increase in taxes even though I don’t make 250k? Someone please tell me if I erred in my calculations. Am I doing something wrong? Does anyone care to comment?
*************************************************
More to talk about… I need to repeat, I am a Libertarian. My belief is less government. I am not racist, I do believe in helping those less fortunate then myself. I do believe that there has been rampant corruption and in fact, I feel our government has enabled and even encouraged this behavior REGARDLESS of the political party in power. To me they are all the same. I find that the Libertarian party has policies that I agree with. Simply stated, that the role of government includes basics such as protecting our borders, providing a military, and items of that nature. It is my belief that the larger the government is, the more opportunity there is for corruption, for people playing the system, for con men, for fraud, for graft, no matter HOW WELL INTENTIONED the program is.
Perhaps because of my profession, because I look at life and everything else based on logic. When things do not appear logical to me I cannot get past them. I fiercely believe in competition because I believe in myself. I feel I can cope with whatever obstacles I encounter and I (perhaps incorrectly) assume that everyone should have that attitude.
Gandalf I did not find your post abrasive at all and the second one was even better. Actually many of the points you brought up make perfect sense to me and I agree with them completely. Make NO MISTAKE about it, and I should have stated this before, if my taxes are increased to pay for the items you brought up, I am okay with that… I will grumble but that is okay. If our government was REDUCED in size to simply take care of these items, that would be fabulous.
I agree with you that it does seem that we are at the point of no return in some respect. Look, whoever is in charge can levy all the windfall taxes they want on corporations. Tax loopholes can be plugged up, we can clamp down all we want on big corporations. However you and I know that margins will still be met because the costs will be passed along to the consumer. Does this mean we should not try these measures? Of course not.
