Obama should give back his tax refundFollow

Hey, like my ex-girlfriend that I met in Madison, WI?

Guess what her political views are? Spoiler alert: SpoilerStrongly conservative



Or like my aunt that never went to college and was never employed a single day in her entire life?

Guess what her political views are? Spoiler alert: SpoilerStrongly conservative



Contrast that against my mother, first person in her family to go to college, got an MBA while working as a physical therapist through night classes, and eventually co-founded her own small business.

Oh man, just guess what her political views are! Spoiler alert: SpoilerStrongly liberal



Edited, Apr 20th 2011 3:34pm by bsphil

That's what you get when you model your entire civilization to making women look like ninjas.

Congress voted to go to war in Iraq. All of congress. Unlike most of the spending done in the last couple years by the Democrats, the war was bi-partisan. So even accepting your premise (which I don't particularly agree with), your argument still doesn't hold up.



I already said that forcing people to pay more taxes for what they support is dumb and I don't agree with it. The point is that we shouldn't be funding those sorts of things in the first place. And let me remind you again that Medicare is paid out of a different set of taxes. You're essentially arguing apples and oranges and avoiding the larger point. People pay into medicare. Like it or not, there is a set amount of taxes that go into paying for it and only it. All the GOP did was change *how* prescriptions are paid for.

That's not remotely the same as eternally adding yet more social spending programs that the Dems think are absolutely essential and then demanding that everyone else pay for it. As I said, if you want to fund charity, there is nothing stopping you. You don't need the government to do it for you.



No. The "rule" doesn't work. That's the point. I've explained this to you several times now. No one seriously thinks we should tax people at different rates based on what government programs they support. That would be ridiculous. The point of the exercise is to get you to grasp the concept that perhaps we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing with tax dollars at all. Anything that clearly falls into the realm of "charity" should be left up to private citizens to fund themselves. We should only do with government money, that which only government can do. And while many people don't like this, defense falls into that category. As does foreign and interstate trade regulation, foreign affairs, intelligence, administration, standards, etc.

Providing checks for people who don't have jobs *isn't* part of that list of things that only government can do. How many times do I have to explain this?



Again. My argument is that we shouldn't be funding these things in the first place. The solution isn't to modify tax rates based on what any given individual likes, but to eliminate spending for all those things government doesn't have to be doing. And yes, for the record, the second we agree to eliminate all welfare, income assistance, environmental subsidies, and the zillion other things we spend money on, I'd be more than happy to toss marriage benefits into the pot as well.


Of course, you realize that the only things that marriage gets you at the federal level is questionable taxes (usually higher btw), some social security, pension, and military survivor benefits, right? I mean, you're basically trading away the store for some pocket change here, but be my guest.

They also didn't intend for the right to bear arms to include ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Too bad they weren't more specific on things, eh?

That'd be a more compelling start of an argument if the constitution wasn't intended to be a living, changing document.

Varus,

Why don't they get SS? Did they not pay into it? It just seems weird to pay into it and not collect it. I'm just curious, not a confrontation.

I'm also curious as to what you have against unemployment...don't get me wrong, I know that it is an abused system where people are on it and not really looking for a job, but you wouldn't apply for it if you were laid off through no fault of your own?

Because it's not the Bible, duder. Our laws are based on the Constitution - you can't disregard the parts that don't support your argument.

Also, are you implying it's fine to ignore the Constitution "because liberals do it"? I thought you were against doing so (as you're certainly trying to claim moral high-ground here), but apparently you're fine with it... yet another reason you can't use that point as your basis for arguing, as you yourself don't believe in following the Constitution.