Ppl for smaller government, how would you deal with this problem v.-30 below

[7960]

Originally Posted by hsmith

not really. i'd like to setup a scholarship for a deserving child. i'll end up doing it even though the gov't steals 40% of my income a year.

I've already done that. When I taught I saw how many kids didn't go to college because of the cost. So I started setting aside a few hundred/year to go toward a scholarship. At first I only gave $50 but it was because I was trying to build principle. I've been putting money in that account for a while now so the principle is in the thousands and I give away the interest (I throw in some extra cash to push it to the next normal-sounding number... it'd sound strange to give $583.19 so I'd throw in the extra to make it $600).

$600 isn't going to be the difference between community college and harvard, but it might be the difference between community college or no college. Or maybe it's one year's worth of books...whatever. But whichever kid wins (I have them compete for it ) gets the money deposited at the college of his choice. I don't hand cash to kids. On a few occassions the kid who won didn't end up going to college so the money came back to me and I gave it to the #2 kid.

That's just one thing I do. I've already talked about helping set up the school at my wife's church, I've already told him how much I give in donations to charity, blah blah blah, but he discounts it all because "this is the internet so I must be lying."

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

No. Maybe your cheap greedy ass would continue to give zero but the rest of us would give just like we do now. In fact there's a lot of evidence that people would give more if they were taxed less, but since you've already said you give nothing you don't have to worry, you can still give nothing.

Where did I say I give nothing? And again, the fact you BITCH and MOAN about the government using your money to help others is the reason we're even having this discussion.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by lew

I want actual real numbers. Not bullshit about "time, money, and items."

What you would consider excess?

If you possess anything remotely nice, it's excess to someone in need and you should have given it to the needy.[/quote]



You asked the questions, I told you my answers. You're not my accountant so I don't have to give you "real numbers" or even explain myself. The point is that I don't bitch about government programs forced upon me to help others. I give what I give and on top of that, the government can happily take what it wants.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

In short, yes. Your luxury is more important than people starving. We already know this.

So is yours.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

This is fucking CLASSIC!!

YOU get to decide what's excess. YOU can say you don't have anything in excess but then YOU get to turn around and bitch about people having "Bentleys, 60" flat screen TVs, jewelry, overly large homes."

The irony of you getting to choose what's excess for yourself but nobody else getting to decide what's excessive for themselves is

No, I don't get to choose. That wasn't the point. I live comfortably...but again...I never claimed I wasn't part of the problem. You swear up and down you are clean from blame when you're a typical greedy asshole like so many of our countrymen are.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by lew

So is yours.

Wrong. Nice try though.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No. Where I have the problem is people like you BITCHING about helping out poor people. "OMG THE GOBMENT RAPES MEEEZZZ!!!" STFU with that shit. You have absolutely NO IDEA how stupid you look when you look at the big picture. The government rapes you yet you can afford 3 or 4 cars? Right.

I only have 2 cars, one for me, one for my wife. You have a car that you've modified........hypocrite. Why didn't you give that extra money to charity?

I never said I wasn't part of the problem. I admit I am...people like you will NEVER admit it because your greedy.

I decide how much I can give based on what my house/life costs, how much I need for retirement, how much my kids will need for education, and how much I need for my play money. I fully admit I'd rather take my kids to england than give that $10k to charity. If that makes me part of the problem then I guess all I can say is tally-ho!

What you "give" isn't even the point of all this...it's what you spend on shit you don't really need. No matter how you lie or spin it, what you waste >>>>>>>>>>> what you "give" Period.

Probably.

But then again I earned it so I get to decide how I should spend it.

In short, yes. Your luxury is more important than people starving. We already know this.

Again, I'm so happy you get to decide what's "excess" for everyone else but nobody can tell you what's "excess." There is no irony there at all. None.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

You asked the questions, I told you my answers. You're not my accountant so I don't have to give you "real numbers" or even explain myself. The point is that I don't bitch about government programs forced upon me to help others. I give what I give and on top of that, the government can happily take what it wants.

That's the point....they DO NOT help others.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

I've already done that. When I taught I saw how many kids didn't go to college because of the cost. So I started setting aside a few hundred/year to go toward a scholarship. At first I only gave $50 but it was because I was trying to build principle. I've been putting money in that account for a while now so the principle is in the thousands and I give away the interest (I throw in some extra cash to push it to the next normal-sounding number... it'd sound strange to give $583.19 so I'd throw in the extra to make it $600).

$600 isn't going to be the difference between community college and harvard, but it might be the difference between community college or no college. Or maybe it's one year's worth of books...whatever. But whichever kid wins (I have them compete for it ) gets the money deposited at the college of his choice. I don't hand cash to kids. On a few occassions the kid who won didn't end up going to college so the money came back to me and I gave it to the #2 kid.

That's just one thing I do. I've already talked about helping set up the school at my wife's church, I've already told him how much I give in donations to charity, blah blah blah, but he discounts it all because "this is the internet so I must be lying."

When you can do all this AND give through the government and NOT bitch about it...you've accomplished something. Until then, you're words are nothing.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Wrong. Nice try though.

oh

[lew]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

When you can do all this AND give through the government and NOT bitch about it...you've accomplished something. Until then, you're words are nothing.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by 7960

I've already done that. When I taught I saw how many kids didn't go to college because of the cost. So I started setting aside a few hundred/year to go toward a scholarship. At first I only gave $50 but it was because I was trying to build principle. I've been putting money in that account for a while now so the principle is in the thousands and I give away the interest (I throw in some extra cash to push it to the next normal-sounding number... it'd sound strange to give $583.19 so I'd throw in the extra to make it $600).

$600 isn't going to be the difference between community college and harvard, but it might be the difference between community college or no college. Or maybe it's one year's worth of books...whatever. But whichever kid wins (I have them compete for it ) gets the money deposited at the college of his choice. I don't hand cash to kids. On a few occassions the kid who won didn't end up going to college so the money came back to me and I gave it to the #2 kid.

That's just one thing I do. I've already talked about helping set up the school at my wife's church, I've already told him how much I give in donations to charity, blah blah blah, but he discounts it all because "this is the internet so I must be lying."

It is easy to dismiss because he doesn't do the same, he doesn't do it so he assumes no one else would. The liberal crowd does this because they think, "gee i don't donate, why would anyone else," when in fact many do donate to help people.

Sad really. "I don't so they must not"

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Wrong. Nice try though.

You dismiss anything anyone else does because you don't do anything to help others. You see others as you see yourself, selfish and unable to help others because you think the gov't is doing it for you.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

When you can do all this AND give through the government and NOT bitch about it...you've accomplished something. Until then, you're words are nothing.

I ALREADY DO THIS. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY.

I give money to charity and I helped establish that school and I give my time to my son's school and I don't bitch about it.

The only time I start bitching is when assholes start telling me I need to give MORE without knowing how much I give NOW. And when they start telling me if I don't give more they should have the right to take more because "the poor people need it." Fuck that. If you leave it how it is I won't bitch. If you reduce my taxes I'll end up giving away more. But if you think increasing my taxes is going to put more money toward social shit you're wrong. If you increase my taxes I'm going to give less. I know how much I make, I know how much I'm willing to give. Increase my taxes and the amount I give will be reduced by that amount.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Where did I say I give nothing?

These answer that question

Originally Posted by hsmith

It is easy to dismiss because he doesn't do the same, he doesn't do it so he assumes no one else would. The liberal crowd does this because they think, "gee i don't donate, why would anyone else," when in fact many do donate to help people.

Sad really. "I don't so they must not"

Originally Posted by hsmith

You dismiss anything anyone else does because you don't do anything to help others. You see others as you see yourself, selfish and unable to help others because you think the gov't is doing it for you.

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Absolutist ideology of any kind is without wisdom, without adaptability, and therefore without stability.

This is a baseless bromide. But good job using the word "absolutist" superfluously, to make "ideology" look like the property of bad guys.

Originally Posted by R-Type

We only have to look at dictators of past 'purist' regimes and note how they faired to see that.

I assume you're talking about guys like Hitler and Stalin. Just the fact that you attach the word "ideology" to these guys is sort of ridiculous, but since Marxist so-called academics have inverted this term so terribly that it just means "opinions" to some, I'll let you borrow it. In a more useful sense (i.e. if the word "ideology" is to actually have any real meaning), these guys were not ideologists of any sort at all. They were pragmatists, meaning that they did whatever they had to do in order to meet their goals, regardless of ideological value. Hitler and the Nazis were never particularly religious. Their movement was entirely political, but whose work did they use to justify the extermination of the Jews? Among others, Martin Luther. Explain the "ideology" there. Tell me just how inwardly consistent it is for a man to say "we aren't religious" and then use a theologian to justify his acts. Truth is, it isn't inwardly consistent at all, and that's exactly the trademark of a pragmatist. Pragmatism is the exact opposite of ideology, and I'll thank you to keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by R-Type

Obviously free market capitalism is a good component for a healthy society, but if it is taken to the nth degree like some here advocate, then it is no more worthy of respect than the extreme socialism the soviets tried to maintain.

Once again, this is absolutely ridiculous. What you are suggesting is compromise, which is an inapplicable concept here, and what's even more grotesque is that you're suggesting compromise between ideologies which are so ridiculously contradictory to one another that any such "compromise" would result in nothing more than a confusing, inconsistent jungle of policies and promises with no justification of any sort and no value at all to anyone but the guy in charge. And THAT is where you get the potential for governmental overgrowth. It's not political ideologies that allow for despotism, it's the concepts of pragmatism and moderation. If you can look at a policy and recognize where it is rooted fundamentally in value, then you can appraise it as either valid or invalid. But if you've got a mixed system, where every argument and position is incorporated (rather than checked for cohesion and either integrated or discarded), then those roots are absolutely indeterminable. If policies are proposed with a specified goal but no visible root, then what's stopping a despot (or a group of them) from doing just about anything they want in order to achieve a pleasant-sounding goal? Nothing.

[6SpeedTA95]

The homeless are handled by national programs? I did a lot of charity work for the homeless shelters in OKC and they were all handled by personal donations as well as local municipal donations, NOT federal.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

I only have 2 cars, one for me, one for my wife. You have a car that you've modified........hypocrite. Why didn't you give that extra money to charity?

First off...what car are you referring to? That car has been gone for years. Second, again, how am I a hypocrite? I have readily admitted I am part of the problem this country has. YOU unfortunately are the one in denial.

Originally Posted by 7960

I decide how much I can give based on what my house/life costs, how much I need for retirement, how much my kids will need for education, and how much I need for my play money. I fully admit I'd rather take my kids to england than give that $10k to charity. If that makes me part of the problem then I guess all I can say is tally-ho!

Well acceptance is the first part of healing. That's all I wanted to hear from you. You are part of the problem and you have accepted it.

Originally Posted by 7960

Probably.

But then again I earned it so I get to decide how I should spend it.

Right. Just what I was saying.

Originally Posted by 7960

Again, I'm so happy you get to decide what's "excess" for everyone else but nobody can tell you what's "excess." There is no irony there at all. None.

Again, your point is lost somewhere in all that rhetoric.