Now you're talking about encouragement vs. help via social security and
welfare. Encouragement to not use those services is a fine thing, but that
isn't "germane" to the issue of wealth distribution.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Please tell us what you would do with the homeless, for example. Should
they be allowed to starve to death on the streets?

Of course not. Nor should they be encouraged to be homeless by programs
that do so. San Francisco's $425 per month compensation to each homeless
person comes to mind.

What about the unwed mother who is 17, because she didn't have access to
information about birth control.

Hogwash. That's akin to implying that there are crooks who are unaware of
Miranda, despite hearing it on TV a million times over the last 20 years.
Yes, there should be programs for unwed mothers, too, but not ones that
encourage such behavior as the current ones do.

What do we do with her? Is it acceptable to have her prostitute herself to
get food for herself and her child?

The *good* folks in Afghanistan seem to believe that's a satisfactory
plan. See above.

It's pretty easy to claim this, but I don't recall anyone saying
something like this. Even if they did, that certainly doesn't represent
my belief and seems pretty stupid.

It was during the Kennedy administration. JFK gave us one of the largest
tax breaks in history, reducing the marginal tax rates substantially.
Some of his House and Senate democrats disputed his move--despite that it
did pass both democrat-controlled houses--and were asked what the maximum
marginal rate should be. One reporter asked a few of them if 100% sounded
okay, to which they nodded their heads. Of course it's stupid.

You're starting to lump us all in with the left-wing numbskull comment,
which seems to be an easy way to avoid the real issue. I don't think I've
called you a right-wingnut lately.

It wasn't directed at you, Jon. And yes, you've been most gracious to us
conservatives of late. My ad hominems are directed at Doug. It's
probably a futile gesture, but I'm hoping that he might begin to see the
pointlessness of name calling.

There's no reason for this type of reaction. I think redistribution of
wealth, as you put it, includes military spending, infrastructure, the
space program, social security, medicare, welfare, more cops on the
street, and all the other services we enjoy or hate from the gov't. Why
are you only talking about the services you don't like?

Redistribution of *personal* wealth. From one's pocket to another's.
It's a basic tenet of communism. Building infrastructure and military
might is not quite the same thing. Conservatives have no objections to
military spending, infrastructure, the space program, and such provided
the expenditures are controlled, monitored, and wise. The $200 hammers
and $50 plastic caps for the legs of B-52 cockpit seats are examples of
less-than-wise, uncontrolled, unmonitored spending.

But to answer your question directly, conservatives believe that people
should take care of their own affairs unless they are unable to do so.
Before my father died, he exhausted the entirety of his estate on nursing
home care. I had to make periodic trips to the Medicaid office on his
behalf, and while there I noticed no shortage of young, healthy males and
females, many of them illegal aliens no doubt, collecting their welfare
checks at the window.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Hold on hoss... tax breaks? Who takes up the slack when some charity gets
the tax break??? You and me. So, putting it off on a charity and then
offering the charity a tax break is a zero sum game.

Wrong. If charities can fund the needs of some of the indigent, the
government doesn't have to. Less government spending, less taxation.
(ideally) Charities, inefficient as they sometimes are, have been shown to
be substantially more cost-effective than government programs attending to
the needs of the same needy people.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use
the infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it
proportionately more. An example is the long commute the less well off
have to endure to get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax for
these things comes from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and
placing it in another's.

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks
lately to any homeless. Have you?

Do you not pay federal income taxes??

Sure do. When you write your check, do you leave out the part that goes to
the military and infrastructure?

No. Do you leave out the part that goes to welfare, etc.?

I'm assuming you don't mind that portion of weath/benefit redistribution,
but feel free to correct me.

You are correct. I'm more than willing to pay my fair share for
infrastructure, national defense, scientific research, the arts, etc. What
bothers me is contributing welfare funds given to anyone who doesn't need
them, and that includes corporations as well as lazy individuals.

Do you deny that the democratic party has traditionally used giveaways and
entitlements as a vote-getter?

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Not apples and oranges. My tax dollars support a number of wealth
redistribution areas. Perhaps you mean germane not generic? :-)

That's probably what I meant.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, now you have. :-) Those better off may (and I dispute this) use
the infrastructure more, but certainly they don't use it
proportionately more. An example is the long commute the less well
off have to endure to get to their low-wage jobs. The majority of tax
for these things comes from the better off.

Hardly the same as taking money from one individual's pocket and
placing it in another's.

Does welfare or social security do that? I haven't written any checks
lately to any homeless. Have you?

Do you not pay federal income taxes??

Sure do. When you write your check, do you leave out the part that goes
to the military and infrastructure?

No. Do you leave out the part that goes to welfare, etc.?

Of course not. That's my point.

I'm assuming you don't mind that portion of weath/benefit redistribution,
but feel free to correct me.

You are correct. I'm more than willing to pay my fair share for
infrastructure, national defense, scientific research, the arts, etc.
What bothers me is contributing welfare funds given to anyone who doesn't
need them, and that includes corporations as well as lazy individuals.

But, you're paying MORE than your "fair share" for those things. There are
lots of people who don't need scientific research, the arts, etc. Everyone
feels bad when they give funds to people who don't need them or don't
appreciate them. However, it's illogical to say that welfare and social
security should be singled out.

Do you deny that the democratic party has traditionally used giveaways and
entitlements as a vote-getter?

Of course I don't deny it. The Republicans do the same thing. And, lately,
they're much more interested in doing that than the dems. They *control*
Congress and the White House. I don't see any of Bush's claims of smaller
gov't. I do see out of control spending.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Perhaps, but as soon as you offer a tax break, you're taking money out of
our pockets. I don't like how some of the charities function, mixing too
much religion with help. So, I'm supporting a welfare state dressed up like
a charity. It's mostly a zero sum game.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Hold on hoss... tax breaks? Who takes up the slack when some charity gets
the tax break??? You and me. So, putting it off on a charity and then
offering the charity a tax break is a zero sum game.

Wrong. If charities can fund the needs of some of the indigent, the
government doesn't have to. Less government spending, less taxation.
(ideally) Charities, inefficient as they sometimes are, have been shown
to be substantially more cost-effective than government programs attending
to the needs of the same needy people.

Max

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:23:03 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

There are
lots of people who don't need scientific research, the arts, etc.

There are? The arts are a HUGE economic engine. Eliminate arts, and we
are in trouble you couldn't imagine.

CWM
You cannot separate arts from science...or sconce from art....life
without either would be unbearable...

I was thinking of all the right-wingnuts who can't seem to figure out that
good science is more important than their religious convictions.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:23:03 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


There are
lots of people who don't need scientific research, the arts, etc.

There are? The arts are a HUGE economic engine. Eliminate arts, and we
are in trouble you couldn't imagine.

CWM

Maxprop wrote:
When one participant has no defense for his argument, he launches into a
dispute over definitions.

OTOH there are people who use terms incorrectly &
ignorantly, and then get all huffy when a kindly person
tries to help them.



Maxprop wrote:
Or the expansion of similar programs, and the love-affair the left has with
such giveaways. It's the primary vote-getter for them, afterall.

Kind of like the way President Bush's give-away program for
churches has been a primary vote-getter for him?

Actually with careful study of the last election, one might
infer that the staunch support of Diebold Corp. is
Bush/Cheney's primary vote-getter, but that's not the issue
under discussion.



.... Without
the ignorant and impoverished welfare-style entitlement recipients
(generall those at the bottom of the voter food chain) the democrats would
be hard pressed to garner 25% of the popular vote.


There's an intelligent & well-reasoned statement for you.

Considering that during the last election, Republican flyers
were being handed around (many being distributed at
churches) that said "Democrats want to force your children
to become homosexuals" and "Kerry has pledged to outlaw the
Bible," one wonders if the Republicans pander to their own
carefully nurtured pockets of ignorance.

DSK

Maxprop wrote:
Some prominent democrat senators and congressmen were asked by a media
pundit some years back if a 100% marginal tax rate would be fair at the very
highest levels of income. They all replied in the affirmative.

Do you know the definition of "marginal tax rate" Max?

Aside from that, you could ask some "prominent senators &
congressmen" from either party if they would like to have
sex with a goat, and they'd reply in the affirmative. It all
depends on who you choose to ask.

DSK