Real Victims of Katrina, Part II

[btm62]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
btm62 wrote:

Are you only allowed to do that?
I just happened to catch you in “the act” again.

“As if you aren’t?” LOL. Oh huh poopyhead!

What? You give yourself way too much credit. What have you contributed on this entire board at all?

The same amount you do. Nothing. I never claimed to. Maybe the frustration I provided you can give you a glimpse of insight into how others feel with your constant belligerence and wordplay.

Buh bye

Like I thought. You contribute nothing to this forum yet actually feel the need to follow me around. Has anyone ever said, “thank you, btm, for your advice?” Hell, even Zeb helps people regularly on the forum. Vroom has his beginner thread. What have you done? Has anyone ever asked you for anything? You aren’t causing any frustration at all. You seem rather pathetic. I had a choice to either ignore you again or ask you what it is you are doing in any positive way on this board. I am glad the only justification you get in life is following me around the board. Have fun with that.[/quote]

I write 3 words in another thread to you and that is following you around?
Who has given you thanks for the advice in a political thread? I think you are thinking of threads that do with weights and diet. Yea, I’ve gotten a few of those too. (And just to be fair, some of that advice you give is very sound.) However in the political forums you fancy yourself a bullying prick. Its played man. Your opinion and life experience isn’t the only one out there. No one has to justify anything to you. Turn the page. I’m not the only one saying this stuff to you man. Maybe there is some truth in what people are saying that you should pay attention to.

No, I’m not perfect, nor am I the forum attitude police, but I’ve seen posts of yours that put forth thoughtful and intelligent ideas. Sometimes its hard to get to those thru all your crap.

Just sayin.

Now Im gonna go wander around aimlessly till its time to post to you again.

[Headhunter]

[quote]pookie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
I don’t think that HeadHunter has a problem with charity, just with “forced” charity through the government.

He comes off as having problem parting with his cash. Maybe I’m just getting him wrong.

It does seem that anything the government does, it does poorly.

Yes, but the fact that he’s using Katrina Relief as an example, and not, say, Halliburton’s shady Iraqi contracts as an example of governmental inefficiency is telling in itself.

[/quote]

I can see, Pooks, that you don’t understand me or my motives at all. Maybe the Professor will try.

You see, Pookie, I take the extremes of Liberalism (“Oh, we must help the poor and downtrodden, those poor victims with no homes, no jobs,…”) and I show it for what it really is: Altruism is a means for power-mad politicians to rob the achievers. They take benevolence and use it as a weapon. Now, why do they do this? Death-worship. T

hey desire to destroy achievement for the sheer ‘joy’ of destroying that which they could not do. The heart and soul of unselfishness (altruism) is hatred — of life, of success, of rationality. Do you think some bleeding heart liberal could build a skyscraper, a transcontinental railway system, a multinational business? Nope.

That’s evil capitalism and it’d interfere with their Green Day celebration. Oh, they might be a poster boy for something like that but you can bet there’s some flaming capitalist behind the curtain running the show.

So, Pookie, my motives are the tenets of my philosophy: Rational Selfishness. I love achievement, struggle and success. I stand in wonder when someone invents something or when one of my kids figures out a Calculus problem. I worship the human mind, the thinking, rational mind. That’s my motivation for what I do.

Without that, my life would be a joyless existence. And that’s why I denounce the Katrina relief — using money stolen from producers for the benefit of others, no matter how much they suffered. That money is not theirs, it is loot.

Headhunter

[Nominal_Prospect]

At first, I was convinced that you were an idiot who genuinely believed his own BS. Now I’m really starting to think that you’re just fucking around. That doesn’t vindicate you of your idiocy, it just makes you a different sort of idiot.

If I were you, I would have ended this post with the above paragraph. But since I’m not you, I’m actually going to address what you wrote (novel concept, I know).

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When will we ever learn that government is NOT the answer to our problems?[/quote]

Want a simple answer to your question? Liberals will learn that government is not the answer to domestic problems when neocons learn that government is not the answer to foreign ones. In other words, never.

You can bank on that.

The end.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Want a simple answer to your question? [/quote]

After reading your other posts, I know that this sort of answer is at the limits of your capabilities. So, I’ll simply say: No.

Goodnight!!

HH

[tveddy]

[quote]pookie wrote:
tveddy wrote:
This thread made me think of something that I’ve been laughin about for a couple weeks. Locally there has been a drought and a lot of farmers (who usually only farm wheat) planted corn and milo to be able to collect the insurance later when it didn’t fair well. last week we got rain and it looks like the crops will fair well enough that the assholes dont get any insurance on it and they have to pay the fuel bill and labor to harvest it. I hate people that cheat on their insurance because it makes it more expensive for the people who are doin things right.

Yeah, for some reason it appears to be incomprehensible to some people that “cheating the insurance company” tranlates to “cheating yourself and all it’s other customers” as you’ll get to foot the bill for yourself and all the other cheaters.

As usual, the only ones getting fucked are the honest customers who pay their premiums and file only truthful claims.
[/quote]

The problem is that with crop insurance all claims are truthful, not fraudulent. Its just that its very easy to manipulate how the crop will turn out.

So some people will plant too shallow or too deep, or not spray, or not fertilize… Then when its time to harvest they just have the crop appraised, let it sit in the field and get paid the difference without ever having to spend money on harvesting it.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Want a simple answer to your question?

After reading your other posts, I know that this sort of answer is at the limits of your capabilities. So, I’ll simply say: No.

Goodnight!!

HH[/quote]

Every time you try and raise an argument, I will simply crush it, as I have in the past. Then your defeat will be a measure of how many posts you can make without stating anything remotely relevant.

[orion]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Want a simple answer to your question?

After reading your other posts, I know that this sort of answer is at the limits of your capabilities. So, I’ll simply say: No.

Goodnight!!

HH

Every time you try and raise an argument, I will simply crush it, as I have in the past. Then your defeat will be a measure of how many posts you can make without stating anything remotely relevant. [/quote]

I?d like to see you crush the underlying premisse in his point against welfare…

That would be seriously impressive…

The fact that NO is probably the worst example he could choose does not mean that he has no case.

[pookie]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
hey desire to destroy achievement for the sheer ‘joy’ of destroying that which they could not do.[/quote]

Destroy achievement? Do they tax you 125% or something? Don’t be ridiculous. Just because you pay 15, 20 or 30% of your income doesn’t “destroy” your achievements. Hell, we pay ridiculous amounts of taxes here in Quebec and it’s not prevented me one iota from trying to better my situation.

So, Pookie, my motives are the tenets of my philosophy: Rational Selfishness.

Is that the PC term for selfish, greedy bastard? It does sound better, especially when you capitalize it nice like that.

I also checked my Bible for Jesus’s teaching of “Rational Selfishness” but I might be missing a few pages… maybe you can shed some light? Or is calling yourself a Christian simply a convenience to blend in the herd?

[quote]I love achievement, struggle and success. I stand in wonder when someone invents something or when one of my kids figures out a Calculus problem. I worship the human mind, the thinking, rational mind. That’s my motivation for what I do.

Without that, my life would be a joyless existence. And that’s why I denounce the Katrina relief — using money stolen from producers for the benefit of others, no matter how much they suffered. That money is not theirs, it is loot.[/quote]

So your solution is… what? Let them die? If they couldn’t carve out a rich existence for themselves and afford to move out of harm’s way, it’s their own fault?

'Cause one problem I see with your reasoning is that unfortunately not everyone is given equal chances in life. Personal responsibility and struggle to achieve is nice and all, but if you’re born of a drunk mother and you start out in life half retarded; or you spend your childhood being abused by unfit parent you didn’t choose, it might not set you up with the ideal conditions for being the next Bill Gates.

It’s easy to see all the poor as being lazy, dumb, worthless and responsible for all the misery they go through, but it’s not so black and white, no pun intended.

On the opposite side, giving them everything without they having done anything to earn it will bring out the freeloaders in drove. Fraud on the receiving end, if you will.

Cutting off all aid might be motivation and incentive for some of them to take charge of their situation. I’m sure you’ll appreciate the ingenuity when a few of them show up at your place, put a shotgun to one of your kid’s head and robs you blind. Hey, on struggles as one can, right? Not everyone is cut out to be a business owner, and even if someone is poor, they’ll find a way to feed their kids.

I don’t have a miracle solution to the problem. But I don’t support tearing down the current system, as lousy and crappy as it might be if we’ve got nothing to replace it with.

I’m sure you, having given it so much critical, rational, selfish thought have a wonderful solution that’ll prevent us from spending our saved tax money on armed guards to protect us from the starving masses.

Someone quite like you once said “Let them eat cake…” (See? Selfish: she wouldn’t share; and rational: If they have no bread, let them eat cake. Brilliant!) Unlike you, she got her wish and soon realized that her idea had unpleasant consequences.

[pookie]

[quote]tveddy wrote:
The problem is that with crop insurance all claims are truthful, not fraudulent. Its just that its very easy to manipulate how the crop will turn out. [/quote]

The claim might be “truthful”, but they we’re dishonest in the effort they made to produce their crops.

You can nickel and dime it all you want, at the end of the day (or year) they’re still dishonest crooks and the undeserved cash they get still gets taken from the pockets of other customers.

If they can’t run their farm without subsidies and “truthful” dishonest claims; they should find another job.

[orion]

[quote]pookie wrote:

I also checked my Bible for Jesus’s teaching of “Rational Selfishness” but I might be missing a few pages… maybe you can shed some light? Or is calling yourself a Christian simply a convenience to blend in the herd?

[/quote]

I asked myself if HH thinks he is a Christian, if so, that would be pretty ironic, since

a) JC is the ultimate sacrificial animal and

b) what he calls liberalism has been, um , strongly inspired by Christianism, which is something he should know having read Raynds rant about the encyclical “Populorum Progressio” by Pope Paul VI.

Or Nietzsches rant about the virtue of the herd vs “manly” virtues like pride, virility, etc…

The fact that those second set of virtues are actually considered to be sins by Christianity fits perfectly in his Rayndian philosophy, how he is able to combine Christianity with this however (if he is actually doing it), is beyond me.

Plus, pookie I could argue that your idea of welfare is a euphemism for “the majority may be stupid and lazy, but since they are the majority they can and will take some of what is mine”.

If me objecting to that makes me a selfish bastard, cool, a selfish bastard I shall call myself from then on.

That does not change however that capitalism requires free exchange while socialism (or pseudo- socialistic welfare programms) are “exchange” by force.

If my egoism requires freedom and your altruism requires the threat of violence , how come your “altruism” is morally superior?

[pookie]

[quote]orion wrote:
I asked myself if HH thinks he is a Christian, if so, that would be pretty ironic, since [/quote]

More than that, he’s had personal voice mails from God Himself! So there’s (supposedly) no doubt in his mind that God exists.

It’s probably some other God than the Christian one, I guess. Conan’s “Crom” would do fine. A God who asks for self-sacrifice, compassion and giving just wouldn’t do, now would He?

Plus, pookie I could argue that your idea of welfare is a euphemism for “the majority may be stupid and lazy, but since they are the majority they can and will take some of what is mine”.

Don’t you agree, though, that welfare, for all it’s warts; does have the effect of reducing crime? Most people don’t want to steal, but if comes down to stealing or watching your family starve, they’ll steal. I know I would.

So while you might not be a direct beneficiary of welfare, you enjoy some side benefit in the form of a less criminal and violent society.

The alternative might look a bit like current day Russia where various mafias run all the shows and you only run your business if you pay them whatever protection money they want.

Many western business man who went there thinking they’d ride the wave of capitalism and make tons of cash came back after losing everything they achieved there to extorsion, fraud and government corruption.

You might have a better solution, though. I’ve yet to see anyone offer a interesting alternative to the current welfare issue.

If me objecting to that makes me a selfish bastard, cool, a selfish bastard I shall call myself from then on.

We all like to keep the money we earn; we all resent paying taxes, no matter the amount; we’re all sickened by inefficency, fraud and corruption.

I’d rather we find ways to address the “inefficiency, fraud and corruption” part, rather than abolish taxation altogether. The taxes could be lowered anyway, if only because the same amount would go further.

That does not change however that capitalism requires free exchange while socialism (or pseudo- socialistic welfare programms) are “exchange” by force.

What does someone who has nothing exchange?

If my egoism requires freedom and your altruism requires the threat of violence , how come your “altruism” is morally superior?

You “freedom” is only freedom for those who already have the means of providing for themselves and their family. How free are you when you don’t know how you’re going to feed your kids for the next few days? Or even where you’re going to sleep?

That’s what I want to know. Let’s say we do abolish welfare, what do we do with all the recipients who suddenly must fend for themselves?

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Want a simple answer to your question?

After reading your other posts, I know that this sort of answer is at the limits of your capabilities. So, I’ll simply say: No.

Goodnight!!

HH

Every time you try and raise an argument, I will simply crush it, as I have in the past. Then your defeat will be a measure of how many posts you can make without stating anything remotely relevant. [/quote]

Funny stuff. HH is out there and I often disagee with him but compared to the level of crap you have posted lately HH appears rational.

Whether it is women, politics or training you have been wrong.

I am not sure if you are just posting outrageous stuff to get a rise out of people (as I think HH does sometimes) or if you truly believe some of the stuff you post.

[orion]

[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
I asked myself if HH thinks he is a Christian, if so, that would be pretty ironic, since

More than that, he’s had personal voice mails from God Himself! So there’s (supposedly) no doubt in his mind that God exists.

It’s probably some other God than the Christian one, I guess. Conan’s “Crom” would do fine. A God who asks for self-sacrifice, compassion and giving just wouldn’t do, now would He?

Plus, pookie I could argue that your idea of welfare is a euphemism for “the majority may be stupid and lazy, but since they are the majority they can and will take some of what is mine”.

Don’t you agree, though, that welfare, for all it’s warts; does have the effect of reducing crime? Most people don’t want to steal, but if comes down to stealing or watching your family starve, they’ll steal. I know I would.

So while you might not be a direct beneficiary of welfare, you enjoy some side benefit in the form of a less criminal and violent society.

The alternative might look a bit like current day Russia where various mafias run all the shows and you only run your business if you pay them whatever protection money they want.

Many western business man who went there thinking they’d ride the wave of capitalism and make tons of cash came back after losing everything they achieved there to extorsion, fraud and government corruption.

You might have a better solution, though. I’ve yet to see anyone offer a interesting alternative to the current welfare issue.

If me objecting to that makes me a selfish bastard, cool, a selfish bastard I shall call myself from then on.

We all like to keep the money we earn; we all resent paying taxes, no matter the amount; we’re all sickened by inefficency, fraud and corruption.

I’d rather we find ways to address the “inefficiency, fraud and corruption” part, rather than abolish taxation altogether. The taxes could be lowered anyway, if only because the same amount would go further.

That does not change however that capitalism requires free exchange while socialism (or pseudo- socialistic welfare programms) are “exchange” by force.

What does someone who has nothing exchange?

If my egoism requires freedom and your altruism requires the threat of violence , how come your “altruism” is morally superior?

You “freedom” is only freedom for those who already have the means of providing for themselves and their family. How free are you when you don’t know how you’re going to feed your kids for the next few days? Or even where you’re going to sleep?

That’s what I want to know. Let’s say we do abolish welfare, what do we do with all the recipients who suddenly must fend for themselves?
[/quote]

Unlike Raynd or HH I have no problems with welfare per se, not only because it is very hard to determine what actually is welfare, but also because nearly everybody would sacrifice some percentage of his/her income to make sure nobody is dying on the streets, gets a basic education etc…

The real question is, how much are we willing to give? 10 %? 20%? 50, 60 ,80%?

As you move along these numbers you lose people along the way and now it is important to realize that Raynds basic argument still stands, welfare means robbing the most successful ones at gunpoint to support the lazy, stupid masses.

It also slows down economic growth which is in reality the only thing that has ever helped the working class.

If you do not believe that, compare real economic growth over 100 years if the real growth p.a. is 3% a year without too much government interference vs 2% becuause of moderate redistribution of wealth by the government.

Do the math yourself, I seriously want you to see on your own computer what a difference of only 1% makes over 100 years. I?s say the difference would b more than 1%, do the math for a spread of 2-3 %.

Welfare in essence is not only state-sanctioned violence, it also means robbing our children and grand-children to an obscene degree.

This is something I rarely hear from the proponents of “welfare”…

[pookie]

[quote]orion wrote:
Unlike Raynd or HH I have no problems with welfare per se, not only because it is very hard to determine what actually is welfare, but also because nearly everybody would sacrifice some percentage of his/her income to make sure nobody is dying on the streets, gets a basic education etc…

The real question is, how much are we willing to give? 10 %? 20%? 50, 60 ,80%?

As you move along these numbers you lose people along the way and now it is important to realize that Raynds basic argument still stands, welfare means robbing the most successful ones at gunpoint to support the lazy, stupid masses.

It also slows down economic growth which is in reality the only thing that has ever helped the working class.

If you do not believe that, compare real economic growth over 100 years if the real growth p.a. is 3% a year without too much government interference vs 2% becuause of moderate redistribution of wealth by the government.

Do the math yourself, I seriously want you to see on your own computer what a difference of only 1% makes over 100 years. I?s say the difference would b more than 1%, do the math for a spread of 2-3 %.

Welfare in essence is not only state-sanctioned violence, it also means robbing our children and grand-children to an obscene degree.

This is something I rarely hear from the proponents of “welfare”…[/quote]

You start out with “I have no problem with welfare…” and end with “welfare is state-sanctioned violence (huh?) that robs our grand-children of an obscene amount.”

I’m not following. Welfare: Are you for or against it? If against it, what’s the alternative?

Also, using ridiculous exaggerations like comparing taxation to being robbed at gunpoint does not really help any. It makes it looks like you’re trying by any means possible to illustrate the gravity of your point, when in reality, there’s not much of one to begin with.

Your question about what level of taxation is appropriate is interesting; but I’d say it’s also pretty much self-regulating. If you tax too much, the rich will simply go away, to somewhere where they pay less (or no) taxes (Monaco anyone?) and as the levels rise, it will drive away the less and less rich.

Too low a level will also tend to self-regulate up, as without enough tax money, you won’t be able to provide the safety net people expect in return and you’ll have social unrest and eventual chaos.

I guess the answer is: you tax as much as people will bear. Hopefully, you also try to provide as much as possible in return. It’s not a perfect system, maybe not even a good one; but it seems to be the best one we’ve found yet. Like that Winston Churchill quote about democracy: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Welfare might be the worst way to help someone, except for all the other ways…

[orion]

[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
Unlike Raynd or HH I have no problems with welfare per se, not only because it is very hard to determine what actually is welfare, but also because nearly everybody would sacrifice some percentage of his/her income to make sure nobody is dying on the streets, gets a basic education etc…

The real question is, how much are we willing to give? 10 %? 20%? 50, 60 ,80%?

As you move along these numbers you lose people along the way and now it is important to realize that Raynds basic argument still stands, welfare means robbing the most successful ones at gunpoint to support the lazy, stupid masses.

It also slows down economic growth which is in reality the only thing that has ever helped the working class.

If you do not believe that, compare real economic growth over 100 years if the real growth p.a. is 3% a year without too much government interference vs 2% becuause of moderate redistribution of wealth by the government.

Do the math yourself, I seriously want you to see on your own computer what a difference of only 1% makes over 100 years. I?s say the difference would b more than 1%, do the math for a spread of 2-3 %.

Welfare in essence is not only state-sanctioned violence, it also means robbing our children and grand-children to an obscene degree.

This is something I rarely hear from the proponents of “welfare”…

You start out with “I have no problem with welfare…” and end with “welfare is state-sanctioned violence (huh?) that robs our grand-children of an obscene amount.”

I’m not following. Welfare: Are you for or against it? If against it, what’s the alternative?

Also, using ridiculous exaggerations like comparing taxation to being robbed at gunpoint does not really help any. It makes it looks like you’re trying by any means possible to illustrate the gravity of your point, when in reality, there’s not much of one to begin with.

Your question about what level of taxation is appropriate is interesting; but I’d say it’s also pretty much self-regulating. If you tax too much, the rich will simply go away, to somewhere where they pay less (or no) taxes (Monaco anyone?) and as the levels rise, it will drive away the less and less rich.

Too low a level will also tend to self-regulate up, as without enough tax money, you won’t be able to provide the safety net people expect in return and you’ll have social unrest and eventual chaos.

I guess the answer is: you tax as much as people will bear. Hopefully, you also try to provide as much as possible in return. It’s not a perfect system, maybe not even a good one; but it seems to be the best one we’ve found yet. Like that Winston Churchill quote about democracy: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Welfare might be the worst way to help someone, except for all the other ways…
[/quote]

I have no problem with wellfare even though it is robbing at gunpoint.

Where is the problem or contradiction?

The majority are the majority and they WILL rob you at gunpoint, as you have pointed out, if they get desperate enough.

This is a political reality which needs to be adressed in a civilized manner, and a welfare system is such a civilized manner. The fact that the US IRS even has SWAT team like forces should make you think, though.

Try NOT to pay your taxes!

See if a exaggerate, the at gunpoint part!

What I would like people who advocate things like a third year of home leave for mothers or fathers to see (and yes Austria is very far down that dangrous road), that ALL the money they wish to redistribute is, basically, loot.

Maybe they would back off a little bit.

To the “taxing the rich” part:

That never happens. The middle class and upper middle class are taxed in a way that allmost ensures that they will never get rich, their money sponsores the welfare programms.

The “rich” usually have little or no income by being employed, which is really the only income that cannot easily be hidden from the state or removed from its influence with the push of a button.

Taxing the rich to help the poor? Yeah, right…

All that really means is that the rich will forever stay rich and the upper middle class that carries the whole system on its back will never become rich.

Raynds sacrifial animal of today is the middle class that is clever enough to make a lot of money but not rich enough to have the political pull or economic power to avoid taxation.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Want a simple answer to your question?

After reading your other posts, I know that this sort of answer is at the limits of your capabilities. So, I’ll simply say: No.

Goodnight!!

HH

Every time you try and raise an argument, I will simply crush it, as I have in the past. Then your defeat will be a measure of how many posts you can make without stating anything remotely relevant. [/quote]

Hmmm…since I say things like: “All relationships between human beings should be voluntary on all sides — anything else involves slavery.” or “Your life, your work, your property are YOURS. No one may take these things from you; they are sacred.” or “Your integrity is priceless.”, this means that you are going to argue against these ideas.

It is for this reason that I don’t debate you — you are a moral cannibal without any principles (except perhaps of destruction). Since we have no common ground, I being civilized and you not, no rational discussion is possible. We must have common definitions, in other words.

However, I do want you to continue to post. You, by way of example, demonstrate how the Left is real nothing more than a bunch of Fascists. Please DO attack individualism, freedom, private property, the individual mind, rationality, capitalism. Evil understood is evil defeated.

Headhunter

[Headhunter]

WHAT IF…

we had a list on our tax form, giving us the option of choosing where our money goes? Against the war in Iraq? Don’t fund it. Against Medicare? Don’t fund it. Want to help Katrina victims? Mark that box.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a choice in the matter, what someone else does with your money?

If it was up to me, I’d also give the option of not paying anything at all. Of course, you then have to live with the consequences of that action.

Wow, freedom with responsibilty, all rolled into one! What a novel concept!!

HH

[Wreckless]

[quote]doogie wrote:
Insurance companies don’t take money from me by force. It’s not the same thing.[/quote]

It’s never the same thing.

[Wreckless]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Great battle, guys! Can I jump in with a question?

Prof, you seem to think I have some hidden, evil intent by posting this thread. Pookie says I’m ‘transparent’. Well, my very limited intellect doesn’t follow: what’s my evil intent and what’s transparent? I thought my goal, consistent with my philosophy, was very limited government and freedom for the individual. I can’t figure out my evil intent. Am I racist, without being aware?

Seriously, guys, explain it to me and remember, this is Headhunter you’re writing to.

HH[/quote]

Are you upset about your tax-dollar being used on the war in Iraq? On the space program? On building prisons? Schools? Roads and bridges?
Would you like someone to come over to your house and explain it to you and ask for your permission every time they would like to spent your hard earned tax dollar? And do you think other tax payers should be allowed the same courtesey? And who do you think should pay for this?

This is how the system works? You elect people. They run the show for a couple of years. If you don’t like what they do, you vote for someone else. You think you could a better job? Run for office.

But you’re right on one thing. Those greedy republican bastards sure reap in the big profits, while the true victims recieve little help at all.

[Wreckless]

Ok, so you wouldn’t want to pay any taxes. Now here are the consequences.

You can’t drive a car. The road is build by tax payers money.
You can’t go to school or send your children to school. The school is payed by tax payers money. You can’t send your children to private school either. The private school is subsidised by tax payers money. The people who teach there are educated and trained by tax payers money.

You can’t go to a doctor. He was trained using tax payers money. You can’t visit a hospital, it was build by taxpayers money.

You can’t go to work. I don’t care where you work. It’s either build, maintained or subsidised with tax payers money.

You can’t workout. You can’t become a member of a gym. The roads leading to the gym are build using tax payers money. You can’t order in your own equipment. The truck would drive on roads payed with tax payers money.

Since you’re not a tax payer, you’re essentially nothing.
You didn’t want to bring anything to the group. And now you’re a cast out.

Now go curl up and die. Your carcass wil be left there to rot. No tax payers money should be spent in covering up your body.
The crows like that.

The end.