From: weiner@bnlls1.nsls.bnl.gov (Gary Weiner)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too?
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:53:50 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>weiner@bnlls1.nsls.bnl.gov (Gary Weiner) writes:
>>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>>duggan@terminus.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes

>>>10% in poverty?  Or 10% at what the US Government calls the poverty
>>>level - where those in "poverty" own their own homes, cars, TVs, and
>>>satellite dishes?

>>I think the current poverty level is around $8000 per year for a 
>>single person ($12,000) for a family of four.  I don't think that many
>>people can afford food and clothing at that level, let alone cars, TVs
>>or satellite dishes.

>Well, povertly level is defined as income, not worth, which is one of
>the problems.  Owning a car, TV, or satellite dish is not factored in
>at all, it's just whatever your current income is.  Poverty level
>now doesn't mean poverty level in the past, even one or two years ago.

Of course not, people's financial situations change all the time. If
I lose my job, should I sell all my belongings before I am truly poor?
That's where all the new poor are coming from, people who have lost their
jobs and can't find work in a "kindler, gentler" economy


> poverty level doesn't take under the table dealings into account either.

Of course not, how can you take into account money made "off the books"?
That's what it means. Are you saying that all these poor people are
making big bucks under the table?


>>>We've spent enough on social programs to have lifted every single one
>>>of these people out of poverty, if the amount of money spent was all
>>>that mattered, and if we just gave them the money.  $100 per is
>>>amazing, considering that we're being taxed at 40-50%, and this, we're
>>>told, takes care of all these social problems.  If you want to use a
>>>number, use the number for donations if all taxes related to social
>>>spending were canceled.
>
>>This sounds much like the "Trickle Down" theory and "1000 points of
>>light", and we all know how well that works.
>
>Reagan cut taxes, charitable donations increased.  George Bush talks
>like a Republican but taxes like a Democrat.

Well, with all the tax breaks that the wealthiest Americans got, it
was the least they could do.  After they spent it investing in foreign
contries, that is.

>>>>There is very little similarity between the government and a robber
>>>>who steals from you. 
>>>
>>>The government can do it brazenly, is not content to rob you just
>>>once, and is generally more vicious if you don't cough up the money.
>
>
>>God, you "taxes are theft" people are so thick it's just incredible. 

Maybe I was a little out of line with this one but...

>Strange, we feel the same way about you "baa baa" government
>asslicking sheep.

Marvel as we bring the discourse to loftier peaks...


>And you proceeed to reveal all the things we've "missed" that....
>we've seen a thousand times before.  Roads, food, etc.  You people
>have absolutely no capability whatsoever for independent thought.  All
>you can think of for funding is theft, you can't even concieve of
>any of the myriad methods of alternative funding.

Damn! you found me out dude, I've been typing verbatum from the
"Liberal Goverment Ass-Licking Handbook: Vol. 8". Believe it or not,
I've thought of all these things on my own.

>>how do you get to work in the morning, you drive on a road paid for with
>>tax dollars. 
>
>Why?  Because the government effectively forbids the construction of
>private roads, leaving themselves as the only game in town.  People
>want roads.  There were roads before governments.  Government
>dependent types might be too stupid to figure out how to build a road
>if the government wasn't there to do it for them, but others will have
>no problem conceiving of it.

What roads were there before governments? I can't for the life of me think
of who was building roads before the rise of governments. Band societys 
didn't build roads and bridges and once people evolved beyond that, you
could properly call them governments.

>>Why can't I just walk into your house, put a gun in your face, and take what
>>I like with impunity, because tax dollars pay for police to protect you.
>
>Law enforcement!  One of the few legitimate functions of government,
>but nothing that needs income tax for funding.  

So how do we fund it? Bake sales? Raffle tickets? Obviously we can't have
ANY sort of taxation because that would be theft. How 'bout we'll just
ask evryone to kick in what they think is fair? Great job being a cop
then, huh?

>>Why is there even money for you to buy things with, because there is
>>a government to stand behind  the money so you don't have to lug a bushel
>>of wheat around to barter to get shoes for your kids.
>
>How stupid can you get?  You believe there was no trade and no
>agriculture and no standardized forms of exchange before governments?

Actually...no there wasn't. Take an anthropology course before you 
call somebody stupid.

>>As a matter of fact, without government funded schools and universitys, we
>>would still be a backward agrarian people.
>
>Bullshit.  Look at private education before government started public
>schools to "re-educate" the immigrants of the time and their nasty
>religions.  You didn't get that in California till 1911, and they got
>along just fine before then.  Once again, education is something
>people want.  If there is a demand, it will be filled, although not by
>you sheep. 

Are you sure about this? Im pretty sure that there were public schools
in the US in the 19th century.

>>Taxes  are the dues you pay to society in return for all the benefits you
>>recieve. 
>
>It's protection money.  If taxes were _really_ in return for all the
>benefits I recieved from it, they wouldn't need to make it
>involuntary.  I'd gladly pay for what I used.  Nor do I even want 99%
>of the "benefits" I recieve.

Yeah, ask shareware authors how much they make from there efforts. Or how
many people who watch public TV on a regular basis actually support the
station they watch.  If you rely on people's "goodwill" for a salary then
eating becomes a chancy business.


>> If you don't like the things that your money is spent on, then
>>elect someone who'll vote the way you want.
>
>Sorry, 51% of the people deciding to steal from the other 49% still
>isn't moral.

Oh, and you get nothing in return? You alredy said you like roads and
law enforcement. There must be at least a few more things that you use
on a daily basis.

Basicly what it comes down to is that you've got yours and everyone else
can go screw themselves.  You've reaped the benefits of a technologicly
advanced, well educated, wealthy society that was created with tax 
money and you don't want to pay your dues. 

Government and taxes have been around since the first tribal chieftan
demanded aportion of all his subjects crops and meat. In those days
you had the same choice as now, go it on your own or pay your dues.

>>If this still doesn't appeal to you, then you are free to leave, I think 
>>there are still some choice parcels of land in Antarctica that you can
>>get where no government will steal your money.
>
>"America!  Love it or leave it, hippie scum!"

It's not just America you don't like, it's all the nations of the world.
Governments are needed in a world of over 4 billion people and somebody
has to pay for them. The "Payment out of honesty" will havwe 10% of the
people paying all the bills and government severely underfunded.




Gary J. Weiner  | Brookhaven National Laboratories  | "The killer awoke 
PO BOX 715      | National Synchrotron Light Source |  before dawn...
Upton,NY 11973  |    weiner@bnlls1.nsls.bnl.gov     |  he put his boots on..."
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.allsysop,alt.bbs.ads,co.general,nyx.mis