From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too?
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:48:44 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA


weiner@bnlls1.nsls.bnl.gov (Gary Weiner) writes:
>In article <rdippold.714770758@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>duggan@terminus.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug19.133159.4961@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) 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.
I included satellite dishes because I have a friend who works for a
local company which installs these, and at least some of those at
"poverty level" have some pretty nice stuff - poverty level doesn't
take under the table dealings into account either.


>>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.


>>>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. 

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


>Let me clue you in on something, without the government you would not have any
>money for them to "steal" from you. Don't think so?  Okay,

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.


>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.


>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.  


>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?


>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. 


>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.


> 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.


>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!"


-- 
Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?  Who knows?  Who cares?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.allsysop,alt.bbs.ads,co.general,nyx.mis