Katie and Jennifer

[Bob Hubbard]

Has everyone forgotten the whole "representation" part of taxation? The government isn't a tyrant or a burglar putting a gunt to your head, requiring payment by force. The American people, via their collective choice, put those legislators in place to determine tax rates.

I know I know, that doesn't fit into the narrative. Just ignore the detail.

And RP.....

Are these representatives doing the 'will of the people'?

[h=2]Congressional Job Approval[/h]

Poll	Date	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
RCP Average	11/3 - 11/15	12.3	81.7	-69.4
FOX News	11/13 - 11/15	12	80	-68
Politico/GWU/Battleground	11/6 - 11/9	12	83	-71
Gallup	11/3 - 11/6	13	82	-69
CBS News/NY Times	10/19 - 10/24	9	84	-75
Associated Press/GfK	10/13 - 10/17	16	82	-66
Gallup	10/6 - 10/9	13	81	-68
CBS News	9/28 - 10/2	11	80	-69
FOX News	9/25 - 9/27	11	83	-72
CBS News/NY Times	9/10 - 9/15	12	80	-68
CNN/Opinion Research	9/9 - 9/11	15	84	-69
Gallup	9/8 - 9/11	15	82	-67
Associated Press/GfK	8/18 - 8/22	12	87	-75
Gallup	8/11 - 8/14	13	84	-71
FOX News	8/7 - 8/9	10	81	-71
CNN/Opinion Research	8/1 - 8/1	14	84	-70
Gallup	7/7 - 7/10	18	77	-59
FOX News	6/26 - 6/28	20	71	-51
CBS News/NY Times	6/24 - 6/28	20	70	-50
Associated Press/GfK	6/16 - 6/20	21	76	-55
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	6/9 - 6/13	18	74	-56
Gallup	6/9 - 6/12	17	76	-59
CBS News	6/3 - 6/7	18	72	-54
FOX News	5/15 - 5/17	24	69	-45
Associated Press/GfK	5/5 - 5/9	30	68	-38
NBC News	5/5 - 5/7	22	70	-48
FOX News	4/25 - 4/27	18	75	-57
CBS News/NY Times	4/15 - 4/20	16	75	-59
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	3/31 - 4/4	20	73	-53
Associated Press/GfK	3/24 - 3/28	27	71	-44
FOX News	3/14 - 3/16	24	65	-41
ABC News/Wash Post	3/10 - 3/13	27	69	-42
Gallup	3/3 - 3/6	18	74	-56
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	2/24 - 2/28	22	69	-47
CBS News	2/11 - 2/14	24	62	-38
Newsweek/Daily Beast	2/12 - 2/15	30	58	-28
FOX News	2/7 - 2/9	31	60	-29
CNN/Opinion Research	1/21 - 1/23	26	72	-46
FOX News	1/18 - 1/19	22	65	-43
ABC News/Wash Post	1/13 - 1/16	28	66	-38
Associated Press/GfK	1/5 - 1/10	26	69	-43
Gallup	1/7 - 1/9	20	73

That constant 60% and higher approval rating clearly says they are...wait, I was looking at the wrong column again?
Damn.

So, tell me again....where's my representation?

If I tell you "give me 25% of your income. If you don't, I'm going to take your car, and lock you in the basement for 7 years." is a crime, is theft, is illegal, why is it legal when the government does it?
Because they government says it is.
But who is making the rules when only 20% or less of the people think the government's doing the right thing?



Freeloader:
- a person who imposes on another's hospitality without sharing in the responsibility or cost.
- a person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return

Hmmm.....

 

[RandomPhantom700]

So, tell me again....where's my representation?

Well, ignoring the question of whether media approval rating polls are reliable, I'd say it's in the fact that the American people keep voting them in. People can complain all they want on internet forums or gallup polls, but the vote is what counts. Don't like the current policies? Vote out the legislators who made them. The fact that you don't like how they're going about things doesn't suddenly render their taxation design illegitimate. Go ask Syrians or Libyans what government coercion really feels like. Unfair =/= coercive.

 

[Makalakumu]

Has everyone forgotten the whole "representation" part of taxation? The government isn't a tyrant or a burglar putting a gun to your head, requiring payment by force. The American people, via their collective choice, put those legislators in place to determine tax rates.

I know I know, that doesn't fit into the narrative. Just ignore the detail.

What makes you think that you have any control of this system at all?

54 cents out of every dollar that is taken from me by the Federal government goes to kill and pay for killers to do corporate wet work over seas. How does that fit your narrative?

 

[Makalakumu]

Go ask Syrians or Libyans what government coercion really feels like.

That would be an interesting conversation. How many countries around the world have US/Corporate dictators that are installed because they improve the business climate? That's your tax dollars at work!

Control?

You don't have control over this. I'm sorry to say this, but it's a misplaced faith. The guns and the power and the money are have gotten so huge that our political system has become a theater to put on a show that makes the citizens think they have influence.

Now, as they strip our rights away, create extra constitutional super congresses, and vote to lock up or American citizens without any due process, this program has about run it's course. The first step to fixing anything about our society is realizing that you don't have control. The second is pointing the finger at the reason why you don't have control.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I pay taxes because if I didn't, the government will come and seize my property, and deny me my freedom.
I don't give them permission to take my income.
I give it to them because if I didn't, they will -steal- my stuff and lock me up.

Duress:
Threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.

They threaten me.
They will assault me.
They will constrain me.
As such I give them my money -against my will-.

You will never convince me otherwise.

But that's ok.
I will be receiving a Mark of Reprisal shortly which will authorize me to travel the US and rape, pillage and burn as I wish.
This will be completely legal, as I will have a document that says so.
Having the document makes all the difference between legal and illegal.
Right?
:roflmao:


I repeat my question:
Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?

Yes or no.

It's a simple question, really.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I repeat my question:
Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?

Yes or no.

It's a simple question, really.

Out of sheer humor, I have to guess you'd have taken the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham (or however it's spelled) on the whole Robin Hood thing.

But no, it's not really a simple question. Taxation schemes are designed by representatives that you, a member of the voting or non-voting public, placed there. You're sitting here claiming that the taxman is just a hired thug acting on behalf of some mafia agent, and that's just not the case. People who receive punitive taxes for speaking out against the government are oppressed. People who fear being shot by their nation's military or corrupt police if they don't wear the right clothing or join the right religion are oppressed. People who are forced to take certain jobs or pay taxes without any say in the matter are oppressed. Having to pay taxes (still ridiculously low-rate taxes compared to other democratic nations, if I remember correctly) to a government you're represented in is not oppression, and it is not coercion. If you don't like it, lobby it. You have that right; the people who are legitimately staring down the barrel of a gun do not.

And lest I be accused of sidetracking, as for the grades-to-taxes comparison, it is deliberately simplified. In the conveniently simple grades example, the exchange is wholly beneficial to one and wholly detrimental to the other; that's not the case with tax money. We all benefit from the various services taxes (when properly used) provide for: police, roads, schools, emergency services, social security, etc. And when they're not properly used, or are unfairly distributed, well that's where the representation part kicks in.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm not asking if it benefits anyone.

I can walk into my local supermarket, grab an armful of food off the shelf, run out, and before I'm tackled by the cops give it to the starving homeless that are hanging out there.
Does the fact that the food I stole benefited the starving make my theft not theft?

Again, I'm not saying we can't work to make changes. I'm not saying we're better or worse than others. I don't care if it benefits all of us, some of us, one of us or none of us.

That is irrelevant to the question.

I'm asking a simple, yes or no question.

I repeat my question:
Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?

What the item in the state of surplus is, is also irrelevant.

Yes.
or
No.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Out of sheer humor, I have to guess you'd have taken the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham (or however it's spelled) on the whole Robin Hood thing.

No. He was a thief. Period.
So was Hood.

 

[granfire]

No. He was a thief. Period.
So was Hood.

I see what you did there!
:lol:

 

[punisher73]

I'm not asking if it benefits anyone.

I can walk into my local supermarket, grab an armful of food off the shelf, run out, and before I'm tackled by the cops give it to the starving homeless that are hanging out there.
Does the fact that the food I stole benefited the starving make my theft not theft?

Again, I'm not saying we can't work to make changes. I'm not saying we're better or worse than others. I don't care if it benefits all of us, some of us, one of us or none of us.

That is irrelevant to the question.

I'm asking a simple, yes or no question.

I repeat my question:
Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?

What the item in the state of surplus is, is also irrelevant.

Yes.
or
No.

That's the problem, people want to lump the other parts of taxes into the situation to justify the government spending the money any way they want. Everyone uses the roads etc, not everyone goes to the state to give them free money. The question originally (in the form of a joke/satire) was it is fair to take the excess of one person and give it to another person.

No, it's not fair to take the excess of one person and distribute it to someone else. In fact, in several speeches proponents of this have even referred to distribution of wealth. So, it really is that simple.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I repeat my question:
Is it right to take a surplus from someone who has it, against their will and wishes, to give to someone with a deficit?

What the item in the state of surplus is, is also irrelevant.

Yes.
or
No.

So basically, any taxation is theft?

And no, I'm not answering yes or no. Yes/no, red/blue, black/white, wrong/right thinking does not in anyway contribute to any type of resolution.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So basically, any taxation is theft?

Yes.

"I'll say this plainly, I've said it before - Taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our property than we do," says Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/22/judge-andrew-napolitano-why-taxation-is

What is the difference between a mob boss who wants 10% "protection money" and the government what wants 10% "for services rendered"?
If I put a gun to your head, take 10% out of your wallet, then later give you a pizza, is that "right"?

It's simple.
I do not wish to pay.
My voice is not being heard, my representative is not representing me.
I pay under duress, because not to pay would cost my property and my freedom.
I have a gun to my head, and a voice is saying "your money or your life".
That is not a choice.

It's a mugging.

 

[punisher73]

So basically, any taxation is theft?

And no, I'm not answering yes or no. Yes/no, red/blue, black/white, wrong/right thinking does not in anyway contribute to any type of resolution.

I think there is a clear seperation between taxes used to pay for things that everyone uses (roadways, police, fire, etc.) and social handout programs or the government funding things like the arts. Many people feel that this is NOT the job of the government at all, but social groups like churches or other charities set up and run by donations.

For example, our city recently got a federal grant for $100k to put up a frame to hang artwork from it on an overpass. It could ONLY be used for a project like that. Many people complained that money was spent that way. Why is the government using tax dollars to pay for something like that? That is well beyond the scope of what the federal govt started as, and what taxes were meant for.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The US would not be $100T in debt, our cities decaying, our economy a wreck, if people were responsible, if the government was small and held to strict limits, and if we weren't forced to fund thousands of redundant, bloated and ineffective 'feel good' programs.

I'm an artist, but I don't support government funding of the arts.
I'm poor, but I don't support handouts for the poor.

It's a hard line I've drawn in ink. I will not say "I'm against X,Y & Z, but not W because I care about W and we should make an exception.".
No, no exceptions.
Strict read of the USC, what it specifically authorizes, is not kosher. Period.
Until the Ratification of the 16th Amendment, Income Taxes were unconstitutional.
I support the removal of the 16th.

Taxation is legalized theft of personal property.
It doesn't matter what good it might do, it is still theft.

Understand I am arguing a -very- narrow point here. I am not debating if they do good, or bad. My sole 'heavy' point is that it's theft.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well, if you're going to say that all taxation is theft, there's not really much discussion left to have. I maintain that it is not theft because you, as a voter and citizen, have a say in the matter. You can lobby, you can vote for new representatives. I suppose you could argue the viability of an opt-out system (i.e. I didn't vote for this tax, so I wont pay it), but then you have to think about what all opting-out means. Your child may not attend the school, but you sure as hell still get the benefit of public education. You may not drive, but you still reap the benefits of DUI laws. Just to name a few.

As for punisher's distinction, I will definitely agree that some tax programs should be revised, but even with welfare, it's arguable that you're still benefitting from the fact that those people aren't out on the streets, homeless. And so often people say they're just getting hand-outs, but there's all kinds of restrictions, requirements, and limitations that have been and can be applied to those programs. Florida just implemented such restrictions on unemployment benefits, as an example. But even when faced with a bonafide unreasonable tax....again, lobby. You're a voting citizen, use that.

That's about all I can say on the matter.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Relaly what do they do average, disadvantaged, low income or non white people every day? Get a bath and get a job? Yeh its crap alright they just can't seem to smell where its comming from. Trickle down theory has transformed to believe me when I tell you its raining and I'm peeing on your leg. The premise of the original thread is that all peopleare strugling because its thier fault, they are lazy, they do drugs, low morals on and on and many of the supposed solutions come from people who have 100 times more than they need and operate under the assumption that all they have came from thier own individual effort? Really out of 7 billion people you have two hand two legs a brain health and all by your self without any gratitude only a dog protecting its bone and in dog mentality your bone is not enough I want yours as well.

Yes Yes it may be a threat to those who feel bad about a law that mandates controls and contribution but its just as wrong to pass laws enfluenced by greed, special interest money to take away rights, safety, jobs and now even trying to take away voting rights which will be the last thing the right wants. This mentality that your worth is predicated by your possesions and bank account and the have nots are some how undesirable is the real class war. Lack of empathy is a curse on the person who has it and one day they will be doomed to walk in the same shoes of the person they are looking down at. 2012 president or not I hope there is a major change to through republicans out and entrenched corupted democrats as well and go back to rebuilding the US not breaking it up to sell of to make a profit.

I sat next to a prominent doctor of our community at a Christmas party a member of our church and he states he actually believes Herman Cain inocent and wanst to vote for anybody but Obama? what a racist elitist attitude!!! his wife as well as another person just publicly promoted in law enforcement wife are two of the most abrasive jerks in town that offend others with thier i'm so good and you should be like me and anybody who isn't is less worthy.

You are all delusional in your own propaganda and all I can say is when the hungry come to eat you maybe you will figure it out

I am delusional in my own propaganda. That is an interesting statement. To which propaganda do you refer?I am not a Republican, nor do I often vote for republican candidates or measures. I am a centrist libertarian.

I recognize most of the statements you have made as originating from Newt Gingrich, who has a track record of hypocrisy and questionable if not damnable ethics, and unseemly quotes to boot. And I in no way endorse him. If you are going to target me with your simmering vitriol, that is fine. But you will find it far more worthwhile to attack the claims I actually make than this strawman you are currently evicerating. In fact, you will find we likely agree more than disagree when it comes to critical points, when the rhetoric is burned away like so much... well... straw. So the greater question is: are you more interested in engaging in meaningful conversation, or mental masturbation? Your call, chief.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But can I not pay and not be punished?
What -choice- do I have here?

Are you saying it's not theft because it's beneficial?
That would mean that if I stole bread to feed the poor, it's not really theft, right?

 

[Josh Oakley]

The US would not be $100T in debt, our cities decaying, our economy a wreck, if people were responsible, if the government was small and held to strict limits, and if we weren't forced to fund thousands of redundant, bloated and ineffective 'feel good' programs.

I'm an artist, but I don't support government funding of the arts.
I'm poor, but I don't support handouts for the poor.

It's a hard line I've drawn in ink. I will not say "I'm against X,Y & Z, but not W because I care about W and we should make an exception.".
No, no exceptions.
Strict read of the USC, what it specifically authorizes, is not kosher. Period.
Until the Ratification of the 16th Amendment, Income Taxes were unconstitutional.
I support the removal of the 16th.

Taxation is legalized theft of personal property.
It doesn't matter what good it might do, it is still theft.

Understand I am arguing a -very- narrow point here. I am not debating if they do good, or bad. My sole 'heavy' point is that it's theft.

I agree. Technology is at the point where many of our public services could be charged on a pay-by use basis.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

But can I not pay and not be punished?
What -choice- do I have here?

Are you saying it's not theft because it's beneficial?
That would mean that if I stole bread to feed the poor, it's not really theft, right?

Oh for crying out loud....it's not theft because a theft is an unlawful taking. Do we really need to dive to this level of sophistry?

I sure would love to see the viable government that doesn't impose taxes. Really, I would. While we're in fantasy land, I'd also like my student loans forgiven and a date with Scarlet Johansson and Jessica Alba--at the same time.

Oh hey, while we're at it, is every cop who arrests someone guilty of abduction? No? Well why not pray tell?

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh for crying out loud....it's not theft because a theft is an unlawful taking.

According to this reasoning, morality is defined by law, therefore anything that is legal is moral. Do you believe that?