• 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!

Helping the Needy and the Poor

Where do you draw the line? Who would you help? You can choose more than one


  • Total voters
    53
I'm not redefining anything. It IS perfectly proper to use it in both situations.
 
Actually the forced taking of property and the giving it to another is the exact opposite of civilized. If you want civilized you have to stop inflicting violence on people to help others.

Ever heard of democratic consent? Its very civilized.
 
Ever heard of democratic consent? Its very civilized.

You mean that thing that is make believe and never occurs? I don't remember ever giving consent for my income to be taxed, but I'm sure you did, right??
 
You mean that thing that is make believe and never occurs? I don't remember ever giving consent for my income to be taxed, but I'm sure you did, right??

When you vote for a candidate that believes we should have basic taxation......
 
You mean that thing that is make believe and never occurs? I don't remember ever giving consent for my income to be taxed, but I'm sure you did, right??

It's not about consent. I's about the tax amendment. You have no say in the matter other than trying to overturn the amendment and good luck with that one.
 
When you vote for a candidate that believes we should have basic taxation......

So if I vote for someone then I consent to everything he could do based on beliefs that I may or may not be aware of. That is complete hogwash and you know it.
 
So if I vote for someone then I consent to everything he could do based on beliefs that I may or may not be aware of. That is complete hogwash and you know it.

No thats not it but since we are a representative democracy you basically give your vote to each candidates platform. Most politicians play into the trustee model of representation.
 
It's not about consent. I's about the tax amendment. You have no say in the matter other than trying to overturn the amendment and good luck with that one.

Yes, its about an amendment that allows the government to reach into your income and claim ownership of it and treat the rest like its a gift to you. In effect they are breaching your right to gain from your labor.
 
No thats not it but since we are a representative democracy you basically give your vote to each candidates platform. Most politicians play into the trustee model of representation.

Lets say I believe your story and lets say that if you vote for someone you consent to their platform. What if I don't vote for that person? Do I still consent to have my property stolen?
 
Lets say I believe your story
Uhhh its not a "story".

and lets say that if you vote for someone you consent to their platform. What if I don't vote for that person? Do I still consent to have my property stolen?
Well saying if you vote for a republican or democrat then yes. Basically every single candidate has enough common sense to realize that we need a system of taxation.
And also its not "stolen" since its legal.
 
Yes, its about an amendment that allows the government to reach into your income and claim ownership of it and treat the rest like its a gift to you. In effect they are breaching your right to gain from your labor.

Exactly. The amendment has no if, no, and buts in it. Actually it is written overysimplified which has given the government a license to tax anything and ayway they want.. Labor should never be taxed, imo.
 
Uhhh its not a "story".

Sure its a story. Its your way of saying that whatever happens I gave consent too. No reason to pretend it has anything behind it.

Well saying if you vote for a republican or democrat then yes. Basically every single candidate has enough common sense to realize that we need a system of taxation.
And also its not "stolen" since its legal.

Stealing - take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force
 
Temporarily for all who find themselves in an unexpected crisis preferably under a type of safety net insurance program everyone pays into. Include job training, education, entrepreneurial mentoring, etc. if deemed necessary. Extended assistance terms for mothers of pre-school aged children but mom has to get educated or work part-time so when Johnny starts school she can get a job. At the same time go after Dad for child support. Permanent assistance for the physically and mentally impaired.
 
What would this country look like if government direct aid/checks/etc. to individuals was strictly forbidden, and all forms welfare had to be an investment in the overall community, such as school funding, housing redevelopment, jobs training, hospitals, roads, and public works? Tax dollars are extracted from everyone, so why should they be directed at individuals? It could be directed at the poor and disabled communities, and provide jobs to the unemployed, but could only be a benefactor of everyone rather than individual checks? I'd argue we'd be alot better off by investing in the overall development of everyone, except the moochers like op discusses wouldn't be able to simply game the system for their own selfish benefit.
 
This is going to sound really harsh and cold, but please stay with me before you stop reading and judge my post.


I'm not in favor of helping any of them through government. Not one cent should go to them through our government. That isn't because I don't sympathize with their situations (minus those ridiculous ones you listed). We simply won't be able to afford it. We are already burdened by endless wars, and a growing welfare state. Our currency is inflating to a point of no return, and we got to make tough choices. I mean tough choices across the board if we're going to save our country from financial ruin. We need to cut spending and cut it drastically...probably need to freeze federal spending for a couple years just to get a handle on our deficit. We have to get to serious on this issue. Cutting on proposed future spending still adds 5 trillion to the deficit because we're still spending.

That means it will be up to private charities to do the best they can for people struggling. It isn't the most appealing decision for people I know, but we have to make tough choices. We cannot live within our means with this massive federal government spending. We're on the brink of a major point of no return as it pertains to our currency and economy. If you research what is happening then you will see other countries are trying to get out of the dollar for buying and selling. That means our currency is losing the battle for "world reserve" currency and an end is in sight. How we respond now will dictate how we can or cannot deal with the situation down the road. We can't kick the can down the road anymore.
 
Sure its a story. Its your way of saying that whatever happens I gave consent too. No reason to pretend it has anything behind it.
Please tell me where i stated "whatever happens you give consent too"? Thanks..




Stealing - take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force
You forgot legal right in there bud.
 
I think we should support the poor no matter what. (Yes even the "lazy" ones who choose not to get a job)

You're a college student right? So should every student in your class be given at least a B no matter what? Even the ones who don't show up to class the entire semester?
 
You're a college student right? So should every student in your class be given at least a B no matter what? Even the ones who don't show up to class the entire semester?

Grade=tax dollars? How interesting... :roll:
 
The problem I have with this discussion is the insinuation that a want of smaller, more local government means you don't care about people, etc. I do care about those in genuine need but I just think our government does a terrible job in providing for those in need or giving those who could life themselves up the tools to do so.

I also genuinely believe our system enables the poor behavior that keeps people down.
 
Last edited:
Grade=tax dollars? How interesting... :roll:

Not much of a difference. Both ideally are meritocracies. To each according to his/her ability.

I will say that we are not currently fully developing each individuals ability, and that is reflected in the fact that we are behind the rest of the world when it comes to test scores, STEM graduates, skilled labor, high school drop out rates, etc. But that's not to say that everyone deserves equal results, but merely to say we want to see an improvement in median results. But giving out results is not an improvement.
 
Please tell me where i stated "whatever happens you give consent too"? Thanks..

You didn't, but you implied it by saying that if we elect officials that have certain beliefs then we consent to those beliefs.


You forgot legal right in there bud.

I didn't forget anything since its simply a copy and paste job from a online dictonary.
 
Last edited:
You ignore democratic consent.
Which is precisely what lizzie wrote. Any use of "theft" is in the general sense, not legal, so stop, it's boring and juvenille, and some of us happen to be adults.

A majority of some groups desire to take her property to pay for what they want. She neither wants them to take that money, nor wants them to spend the way they spend it. Voting against someone and them winning, is hardly any meaningful definition of consent. Worse, a college student, who hasn't contributed enough to society to earn enough to fund society in any meaningful way, gets to vote to take someone elses money, for things they, in their infinite wisdom college years, "feel" is right? What a joke.

That's not an appeal to authority mind you. I'm just informing you that my choice carries more weight then yours, about my own property. Sure, it also carries more weight because of my age, experience, how much I've personally paid in taxes and contributed to society, but there really isn't a need to go there, as long as I am protected by government from you wanting to take my property, it would be fine. Of course, you believe government should simply on a majority vote, be able to take property. Makes no sense, but there are many others just like you who love the idea of doing nothing, and then getting a lot in return.

The real needy are hurt the worst by individuals like you who believe they have a legitimate right to pump money their way, or in ways they want...probably 90% of which is not to the really needy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom