TMSTKSBK;717760 said:
Ok.
Here are my priorities for government:
1. Keep the citizens of the country being governed safe overall.
And there are no others.
Wow. That's brilliant.
Well then, I guess that about covers it.
Hey, we're not being invaded, so someone call Congress and tell them that they can go into recess!
Yeah, that's the extremely simplified version of it.
That's putting it kindly. I'd call that "simply stupid".
But that's the general idea. It doesn't help you to have awesome social programs if you aren't safe. Therefore, the "big stick" comes before the "soft pillows". Work before play.
That's about the most narrow tunnel-visioned thinking I have ever heard. I don't think you'll need to worry about getting elected into office any time soon, at least not on THAT platform.
It's not an all or nothing proposition. You can have safety AND you can have social programs. In fact you NEED both. Safety is immaterial if your country is going to shit from economic ruin. People dying from sickness and injury because of spiraling health costs aren't safe. Go to some third world country and see how good safety is doing them when half the population is dying.
It is my opinion that Iraq is a subset of The Priority for government. You are welcome to disagree.
The problem with your definition of The Priority(tm) is that it is so broad it can mean anything that you personally decide it to be.
Ever think about working for the Bush administration? He's looking for more guys like you!
No, I am not, as you say, an "insensitive douchebag." I'm a poor person (my income was just above the poverty line last year) that can't give money to others. Yet. I intend to. I like supporting organizations and people that need support and have a worthy cause.
Being in a lower income bracket who "intends" to contribute to causes you personally find worthy doesn't make you Mr. Sensitivity.
When you say things like "I want all social programs to be scrapped" because you don't care about the people those programs are designed for, that, sir, makes you an "insensitive douchebag".
Being forced to donate to a "charity" run by the government is not my idea of freedom. I'm fine with being taxed for the continued running of the US military. It is a necessary thing, so that I don't get blown up in my sleep some day.
If you think that a military is the only thing a country needs to function, you have a lot to learn.
"Donating" to some massive bureaucratic machine, which then wastes a vast portion of its income on unworthy subjects is not something I want to be taxed for. It doesn't matter if some percentage of the people the machine helps are truly in need of help, the machine shouldn't be there.
How nice of you to make broad generalizations against the entire population, detemining the majority of them to be "unworthy subjects" (subjects? What is this, a monarchy?)
Furthermore, instead of being fiscally responsible and attempting to grow the wealth of the citizens, the "machine" squanders it, and doesn't even attempt to ensure that you will get back the amount you paid in.
What in God's name are you talking about? It's not the government's responsibility to grow the wealth of the citizens.
If you're talking about social security, it was never designed to make anyone wealthy. It was designed to be a supplement to your own retirement plan. It is intended to ensure that all citizens have something when they retire, even the ones that are too stupid to manage their own retirement plans.
Hey, I hear there are aliens in Area 51. Have you checked that out? I bet the "machine" is being used to hide their existance. Who knows how many government programs are being wasted to hide their existance.
I will never see a penny of my social security tax. At some point in the next twenty years, social security will go flat-out bankrupt. I find this infuriating. The government is taxing me with a "promise" that I will someday see this money again. Let alone the fact that I could invest that money, or do something else equally fruitful with it, since I'm not truly going to see the money again, it's highway robbery.
Oh ye of little faith.
Listen, people have been talking doom and gloom for social security for the past 20 years. My bet is that we will work things out.
Sure, right now I'm paying in to support my grandmothers, who are widows. But if I wasn't, couldn't I just give the money to my grandmothers? Couldn't my parents?
It's not just for them. But then again, that's totally in keeping with your "me first" mentality.
If you're a pauper, and don't have any family, aren't there charities that help such people? If the social security/medicare/medicaid taxation was removed, wouldn't more people be ABLE to donate to those charities?
Sure, and magic faeries will come down from the skies and sprinkle magic dust, and all taxes can magically be removed with no reprecussions to the country at all. And they lived happily ever after!
Let's look the record of history. Before all these social programs, there were still poor people. People donated to churches and other private charities that went out to help the poor, sick, and elderly.
I think history would show that more people died as a result of poverty in past years than in present years. It doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but the problem was worse in the last century, not better.
Social security was made to help the rich stay rich. It doesn't pay out more than you would normally make. So if you're rich...you get more than you would if you were poor. If you're poor...you stay poor. It was a broken fix for a broken economy. Its time is over. Let's let it go.
When you retire you will be the first in line to get your check. And you'll probably be damned grateful that you have it too.
