Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Farseer in his comments below hits it on the head and doesnt even realize it:  SOMETHING must be cut.  Education - cant do that,  FREE Healtch Care - oh hell no cant do that, Homeless shelters  - damn thats rough, but gotta start somewhere.  Cuz if you dont, it will ALL dissapear.  It sucks when Big Brother/Nanny/Mommy runs outta free money for ya.

Homeless without help will generally remain homeless because there is virtually no opportunity for them not to do so. It's just about the worst situation you can be in as far as upward mobility is concerned.

I like how if you "gotta start somewhere", you assume that homeless shelters are the place to start. Or that revenue can't be increased to compensate.

[Leafsnail]

Or maybe the left wingers kept giving way all the money and now there isnt enough left for everyone cuz the damn public trough is empty.....
Farseer in his comments below hits it on the head and doesnt even realize it:  SOMETHING must be cut.  Education - cant do that,  FREE Healtch Care - oh hell no cant do that, Homeless shelters  - damn thats rough, but gotta start somewhere.  Cuz if you dont, it will ALL dissapear.  It sucks when Big Brother/Nanny/Mommy runs outta free money for ya.

The healthcare isn't free.  We pay for it, and we get it.  Big Brother and the imaginary Nanny State do not come into it.

I guess there'll be a lot more homeless people after the conservative cuts anyway...

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Farseer in his comments below hits it on the head and doesnt even realize it:  SOMETHING must be cut.  Education - cant do that,  FREE Healtch Care - oh hell no cant do that, Homeless shelters  - damn thats rough, but gotta start somewhere.  Cuz if you dont, it will ALL dissapear.  It sucks when Big Brother/Nanny/Mommy runs outta free money for ya.

Homeless without help will generally remain homeless because there is virtually no opportunity for them not to do so. It's just about the worst situation you can be in as far as upward mobility is concerned.

I like how if you "gotta start somewhere", you assume that homeless shelters are the place to start. Or that revenue can't be increased to compensate.

I wanst trying to imply that cutting homeless support first was my idea, I was trying to be sarcastic with my examples, and failed quite spectacularly apparently.  Sigh. 

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Or maybe the left wingers kept giving way all the money and now there isnt enough left for everyone cuz the damn public trough is empty.....
Farseer in his comments below hits it on the head and doesnt even realize it:  SOMETHING must be cut.  Education - cant do that,  FREE Healtch Care - oh hell no cant do that, Homeless shelters  - damn thats rough, but gotta start somewhere.  Cuz if you dont, it will ALL dissapear.  It sucks when Big Brother/Nanny/Mommy runs outta free money for ya.

The healthcare isn't free.  We pay for it, and we get it.  Big Brother and the imaginary Nanny State do not come into it.

I guess there'll be a lot more homeless people after the conservative cuts anyway...

Question:  How do you pay for it?  Do you pay the doctor when u see him?  Or does the government pick up the tab?  I am curious.

EDIT:  Sorry for the double posts back to back!  My bads.

[Criptfeind]

/:l

Wut?

Do you think the government just has this well of money that it all comes from and your taxes are set on fire?

[Leafsnail]

Question:  How do you pay for it?  Do you pay the doctor when u see him?  Or does the government pick up the tab?  I am curious.

The government "picks up the tab".  And the government is run using the taxes which everyone pays (no exceptions - even if you aren't employed, you're still paying VAT).

Do you think the government just has this well of money that it all comes from and your taxes are set on fire?

Actually, that would be fundamentally the same apart from incurring unnecessary printing costs, I guess.

[Criptfeind]

Right, but that is the only way I can think of that saying the government pays for things would make any sense.

Even then, it make one sound like a crazy anarchist that thinks if there was no government roads and other services would exist.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Criptfiend:  Maybe I am misreading you, but:
ummm, what?  Do you really think that taxes are the only goverment revenue?  Do you really think that when the goverment pays for your _________-care bill, you payed for your bill in full with your taxes?  Do you really think your taxes cover your costs equally?

Do you really think that the goverment has enough money for everything:  Education, homeless rehabilitation, criminal rehabilitation, Health Care, national defense, infrastructure maintenance and creation, waste management, welfare (helping sick/elderly/handicapped), salaries for the goverment employees, utilities, etc etc etc etc?

There just isnt enough money to go around.  Eventual, someone has to make the decision what to stop paying for.  It sucks, but, it is what it is, namely, REALITIES OF EXISTENCE.  Every single goverment in the world has to struggle with this.  Who gets what money, where, in how much quantity.  Oftentimes Most times Pretty much every time, its the supporters of the currently elected officials who get the biggest windfall (ie Obama administration - lol).  How big is determined by the morals and ethics and ideals of the elected officials.  Unelected buearacrats on the other hand........*shudder.

So, if the homeless get all their funding and shelters back, what, instead, should be cut from the national bill?
Dont say "defense".  You will just put 100,o00+ out of work on the spot and onto goverment welfare susidies, most likey costing more per person.  At least the military are actually doing something (ie safety, rescue, aid - see "Japan").

I would really like to hear some thoughtful answers here.  Although i am sure i will hear some "BUSHITLERBURTANWARBALRGITYBLARGZOMG111!!!!1!!!!RAGE"  But, I also might get some dialogue!  Maybe.  oh.........Drat!

[Taricus]

Sir, I believe you have forgotten about raising taxes...

[Leafsnail]

Criptfiend:  Maybe I am misreading you, but:
ummm, what?  Do you really think that taxes are the only goverment revenue?  Do you really think that when the goverment pays for your _________-care bill, you payed for your bill in full with your taxes?  Do you really think your taxes cover your costs equally?

Yes.  The government is running at a loss, but that doesn't change the fact that you're making a ridiculous false dichotomy.

Dont say "defense".  You will just put 100,o00+ out of work on the spot and onto goverment welfare susidies, most likey costing more per person.  At least the military are actually doing something (ie safety, rescue, aid - see "Japan").

You could say the same of any other area... including helping the homeless.

[Criptfeind]

You are obviously much better informed that I am, so could you pray tell what percentage of the federal governments revenue is not taxes?

It is very hard for me to find any sources on it, it appears that most sources think it is such a minuscule amount that they do not even bother reporting it.

From what little I am able to find it looks like it ranges between 3 and 4 percent.

Certainly that is a huge chunk and certainly covers all expenses, but I would rather have some one as well informed as you find the percentage for me because I suspect that is not all.

Edit: Oh wait, silly me, it appears that that 3 to 4% is made up of a number of taxes as well as non tax revenue. Whoops.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

You are BOTH still completely missing the _____ing point, which lends itself to show that you have no other argument.

If there isnt enough money for everything, what would you cut?  Come on.  Say something.  I have asked this question over and over and all I am getting is your specious blabberings.  There is no "ridiculous false dichotomy" here.  Simply ______ing question.  Perhaps Criptfiend should learn about IMPORT DUTIES, LISCENSING FEE's, CRIMINAL FINES, CIVIL FINES (see tobacco!), LEASING OF GOVERMENT LAND.  Perhaps, you should check that stuff out, and oh so much more different ways the government collects revenue.

But I am sure you will still miss the _____ing point.  You have to.  Your dellusional universe might get punctured by its sharp tip.

[G-Flex]

Gorjo: Are you Dr. Gene Ray, Cube Phenomenologist and Wisest Human?


Anyway, speaking for the US, a lot of money could get cut from defense without losing much of anything, and a whole lot of waste (defense contract bullshit/lack of oversight, inefficiency in general) could be eliminated while losing virtually nothing at all except the initial investment.

Also, "people would lose their jobs if we cut from defense!" applies, like someone else said, to anything. If the US federal government had a cat-shaving, puppy-kicking, or sidewalk-chalking brigade sucking up 20 billion per year, you could make the same argument about that.

[Leafsnail]

Well, you changed your unfounded assertion ("the government doesn't have enough money and there's no way for it to raise more") into a theoretical question ("If the government didn't have enough money and there were no way for it to raise more").  I guess this question is sortof answerable.

You could start with defence.  Get rid of some of the more extravagant technology procurements.  Stop giving BAE Systems so much money.  Stop fighting unwinnable wars.  Axe trident.

Get rid of grants to arts projects that don't need it.  Preventing tax evasion would help a lot, but apparently it's impossible for the government to take in more money.

IMPORT DUTIES, LISCENSING FEE's, CRIMINAL FINES, CIVIL FINES (see tobacco!), LEASING OF GOVERMENT LAND.  Perhaps, you should check that stuff out, and oh so much more different ways the government collects revenue.

These range from belligerant technicalities to just plain wrong.  For instance, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs describes import duties as:

a tax charged on importation of goods produced outside the European Union

License fees are effectively taxes.  Fines make up a tiny proportion of government income and usually go towards fixing whatever the person did to have to pay the fine.  I guess investment (made using tax money) is another area but I'm not sure what the heck that has to do with your case.

[Criptfeind]

You are BOTH still completely missing the _____ing point, which lends itself to show that you have no other argument.

If there isnt enough money for everything, what would you cut?  Come on.  Say something.  I have asked this question over and over and all I am getting is your specious blabberings.  There is no "ridiculous false dichotomy" here.  Simply ______ing question.  Perhaps Criptfiend should learn about IMPORT DUTIES, LISCENSING FEE's, CRIMINAL FINES, CIVIL FINES (see tobacco!), LEASING OF GOVERMENT LAND.  Perhaps, you should check that stuff out, and oh so much more different ways the government collects revenue.

But I am sure you will still miss the _____ing point.  You have to.  Your dellusional universe might get punctured by its sharp tip.

Oh stop. It's just so funny.

You seem to keep changing what you are trying to say. At any rate. The things you said? Like half of them are taxes. If I take 40% of your wages and call it a working fee, that does not make it not a tax.

The other half? I would say Less then 2% of the federal governments income come from such activities.

I am not here to argue on what to cut or what not to cut. I just jumped in with a genuine question for you when you seemed espouse the thought that the government does not use taxes for Medicare. Then you come back with that taxes are not the main way a government makes money so I point out how little does not fall under taxes. Now you come back with that was not what we were talking about at all and you are yelling at me to say what to cut?

At least you are right about one thing. This is not a false dichotomy, (Not to say what you are talking about with leafsnail is not one, that certainly is) This is simply a Scotsman fallacy. I hope that makes you feel so much better.