• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

Yeah. I read that.

Since we donate more money, what ****ing difference does it make?

We're under no contract to submit x% of our GDP to parasites around the globe. Donate more if you care about them, or donate nothing, if you don't care about them, like me.

The Left is always complaining:

There's too many people in the world.
The United States is evil because it doesn't help all those people.

Well, there's too many people in the world and hence logically the thing to do is to minimize actions that increase the number of people who can't wipe their own asses.

I'm not a Lefty, I use logic.



I don't care. It's not the job of the American taxpayer to feed international charities with his tax dollars, and it's not a requirement upon any citizen to donate money to any charity he doesn't want to.

What part of "free country" did you fail to understand when going to school?

Sometimes cold logic leads to bad conclusions. This is one of them. It is the moral obligation of the strong to help the weak as best they can. This is not social Darwinism, I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars helping other countries as long as Americans in trouble recieve help first, which, truthfully, is not happening.
 
Sometimes cold logic leads to bad conclusions.

That makes no sense. If we use logic correctly then we will always get the right conclusions. We may not like them, but they will be right (assuming the assertions are true).

This is one of them. It is the moral obligation of the strong to help the weak as best they can. This is not social Darwinism, I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars helping other countries as long as Americans in trouble recieve help first, which, truthfully, is not happening.

A person that supports social darwinism would tell people to not give to charity and not help the poor.
A person who wants the government to tax people to help the poor is nothing more than a supporter of thievery.

I'm proud to say that I lie between the two extremes. I'm not a social darwinist and I don't support theft either.
 
Back
Top Bottom