ManusJustus said:
| TheRealMafoo said:
I expect to pay taxes, and to pay for a system of government. I even expect to pay more to protect the poor.
I will never be happy with being forced to pay to take care of the poor.
|
There you go again, making up a categorization system for what is right and wrong when there isnt a fundamental difference. So you want to pay to protect the poor, but not take care of the poor. How is taking care of the poor not protecting them, and how is protecting them not taking care of them?
I said this before, a point you tactfully ignored, that you are making up a difference where there is none, and that difference is based on emotion and is free of logic.
Answer this question, if anything for your own sake so that you can better undersand yourself, why is it good to pay to protect the poor from criminals but bad to protect them from cancer?
|
Exactly. Mafoo makes up these arbitrary categories that when you compare them to other things are really strikingly similar.
I'll list quite a few:
Farm subsidies
Favorable tax deductions for rich people and businesses
Allowing certain types of financial instruments to remain unregulated or tax-free
Government contracts with private businesses
Here is a blurb on corporate welfare:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities — expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" — in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, "corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.
Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs continue to fund the wealthiest farmers.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
