So the money that gets redistributed from us to you, will then be distribute out again? How nice of you.
I don't need anything from you......looks like I'm already in a much higher pay grade.
You just hang on to the little you've got.
So the money that gets redistributed from us to you, will then be distribute out again? How nice of you.
St. Olaf wrote:What exactly is the job of government? It is hard to determine the correct size when the liberal philosophy tends to be big enough to do everything, including banning a folded piece of metal with a spring.
It really IS a difficult question, although it should be framed as "how much larger" rather than "how small."
That's why we need a group that's smarter than the Tea Party to decide.
St. Olaf wrote:NMRMN wrote:St. Olaf wrote: It's too often used as an excuse for bad behavior.
Good thing we have you here to set us straight... Err, legislate us straight.
Thats sarcasm, because I imagine you will miss that if I dont point it out.
I'm not here to legislate or set anyone straight.....just to offer a point of view that I noticed was missing.
:mrgreen:
ShadowFlyP wrote:St. Olaf wrote:What exactly is the job of government? It is hard to determine the correct size when the liberal philosophy tends to be big enough to do everything, including banning a folded piece of metal with a spring.
It really IS a difficult question, although it should be framed as "how much larger" rather than "how small."
That's why we need a group that's smarter than the Tea Party to decide.
It really is NOT that difficult of a question. Are there limits on government? If so, where do they come from?
offering a point of view is one thing, and I aggree. Its good to have healthy debate. Badgering, instigating, provoking is not helpful, and betrays a sick psyche, in seeing how much you get off on it.
St. Olaf said: The limits are based on the extent of the need and the resources available.
St. Olaf wrote:The limits are based on the extent of the need and the resources available.
ShadowFlyP wrote:St. Olaf wrote:The limits are based on the extent of the need and the resources available.
Where have I heard this line before? "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen."
I think your emoticon is waving the wrong flag.
(Yes, two can play the name-calling game)
grousemaster wrote:These same arguments have been made so many times. So many have died. Tens of millions of body bags have been filled do to this line of thinking.
St. Olaf wrote:
Baloney. According to the distribution of wealth information, you're hardly contributing the weight of a couple of sparrows.
We at least want to get you up to a couple of chickens.
St. Olaf wrote:
The limits are based on the extent of the need and the resources available.
LePetomane wrote:St. Olaf wrote:
Baloney. According to the distribution of wealth information, you're hardly contributing the weight of a couple of sparrows.
We at least want to get you up to a couple of chickens.
I pay plenty. I just did my personal and business taxes and the amount I pay is quite a bit. And them I get a beatdown from someone like you who is on a State of Minnesota pension with free health insurance that you probably abuse while you probably smoke and overeat. You're on the public dole as far as I'm concerned. You've said before,"I've already got mine." You advocate higher taxes so the goose that laid your golden egg doesn't go away. You are an income envious liberal. You're probably sleeping one off as I write this. I'm up at this time every day to prepare for my work which generates my income which gets taxed to generate yours.
goalie wrote:St. Olaf wrote:
The limits are based on the extent of the need and the resources available.
No. They are based on the constitution, which defines the limits of the federal government's powers, and grants those not listed to the states.
St. Olaf wrote:goalie wrote:St. Olaf wrote:
The limits are based on the extent of the need and the resources available.
No. They are based on the constitution, which defines the limits of the federal government's powers, and grants those not listed to the states.
No, the Constitution does not say that our rich nation should should deny health care to poor people and their babies because they're poor and therefore subhuman.
It does not say that our rich nation should deny education to the children of poor people because they're poor and therefore subhuman.
It's just that some fearful, selfish and greedy people try to misuse the Constitution to deny the poor their human rights.
Ain't gonna work. Far too obviously bogus.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests