TheMightyEthan Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I liked this one http://www.politicalcompass.org/ But I haven't used in in 5 or 6 years, so I don't know how it is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 those of us who are doing well in our society have a moral obligation to assist those who aren't. To a point. I have no issue taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves. Those who refuse or by lifestyle choice should have to live with their own bad decisions. Only widespread organizations like the government or the Catholic Church (examples, I know there are others) are capable of addressing the issue on a societal scale, Yeah, how well has that War on Poverty worked out? Where I have an issue is that the government's goal is to get as many people dependent on the government for its services. They are not looking to alleviate the issue, they simply want to manage it. and I prefer the government because unlike other organizations they can make it compulsory and they won't (or at least are less likely to) deny the aid to people because of unrelated moral objections (like refusing to let sexually active gays sleep in a church run homeless shelter). It is a very great thing to reach into one's pocket to give to others. It is an evil thing to hold a man at gunpoint and force him (through taxes) to give to others. The Federal Government's job is not to protect or to redistribute wealth. Its job is the very basics like maintaining an army, regulating trade between the states, establishing postal roads etc. I also don't like more local solutions because then people in higher-wealth areas get more help than in lower-wealth areas. For instance education is one of the most effective ways to fight poverty, but the practice of paying for public schools with local property taxes means that schools in areas with low property values (poorer areas) get disproportionately less funding and thus a lower standard of education, and therefore it is much more difficult for the children in those systems to lift themselves out of it. Most schools, at least in Massachusetts, tend to have two sources of funding: local and state taxes. Many states fund their schools using the lottery (another evil, but whatever) or other taxes. New York splits their property taxes into straight property and school taxes and you pay by county. I understand that government-funded schools are different than private charities, but it illustrates the problem of trying to address issues on a local level: rich areas get more help, poor areas less, so it ends up worsening economic disparity. You're assuming that charities don't move money around. My wife's church has gone to some poverty stricken areas that are quite a distance away from them. This is strictly a congregation funded effort and it isn't like the Catholics who have money channeled through a higher organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Removing my quotes to try and avoid a quote explosion. Yeah, how well has that War on Poverty worked out? Where I have an issue is that the government's goal is to get as many people dependent on the government for its services. They are not looking to alleviate the issue, they simply want to manage it. That's not the government's goal and you know it. That aside, whether specific programs are or are not the right way to go about it is a completely separate question from whether it should be the government doing it or not. It is a very great thing to reach into one's pocket to give to others. It is an evil thing to hold a man at gunpoint and force him (through taxes) to give to others. I just disagree with you here, but it's an opinion so whatever. The Federal Government's job is not to protect or to redistribute wealth. Its job is the very basics like maintaining an army, regulating trade between the states, establishing postal roads etc. I disagree with you here, both philosophically and legally; I think wealth redistribution on a national scale is at least plausibly within the Commerce Clause power. That said, I think the power of the federal government has expanded in other areas (even areas I support philosophically) well beyond anything that can reasonably be justified by the Commerce Clause (the main clause the federal government has used to expand its influence). You're assuming that charities don't move money around. My wife's church has gone to some poverty stricken areas that are quite a distance away from them. This is strictly a congregation funded effort and it isn't like the Catholics who have money channeled through a higher organization. I was generalizing, I know that there are small local groups that do go to other places and do good work. Also, I did the political compass thing: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 There we go. I'm green. I wouldn't say you're dependent on a gov't for it's services (Well apart for things like emergency services n roads, but they'd be pretty hard to do on a personal/private level). If you don't wish to use the NHS over here for example, those with funds can go with BUPA. Don't like the gov'ts JSA, get a job. Don't like state school, Go to a private school. There's plenty options available. Don't like any governmental stuff in your life at all? go to Somalia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 the problem with that is that even if you don't use the services you're still paying for them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I don't see that as having any bearing on the issue. As I said above, those of us who are doing well in our society have a moral obligation to help those who aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yeah, pretty much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yeah I'm with Ethan on this. I'm actually amazed that people feel like the tax money are money that they should be able to spend on whatever they want. Tax money is you doing your part towards the better of the society. In return, you have the same safety net if and when you need it. What's that, you say you have enough money that you won't need it? Then what are you bitching about? If someone has enough money that they have no problem getting by without a societal safety net, then they are in an even better position to give back to society. And I think everyone does owe society. Even assuming someone was completely home-schooled, never used public services for anything, and made all of their money starting a private business... They still wouldn't have made the money without the rest of society buying their stuff. Looking at this, it's a bit of an unstructured rant, but... Basically, I just think everyone should do their part to help build up the society in which they have flourished. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I WIN MOTHERFUCKERS Edited February 22, 2012 by DukeOfPwn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harri Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 The younger we are, the more left we are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I agree with you, I was saying I didn't really understand Dean's point. If you live in a country like the UK which has a lot of government support you can use private companies for a lot of it if you're rich enough but you're still paying for the public stuff so it doesn't matter if you're completely against government support or not. I personally am for it in principle, I just think they make a right hash of it in practice. edit: oops, perhaps I shouldn't have had dinner before posting the reply I wrote, whish was aimed at TME Edited February 22, 2012 by TheFlyingGerbil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I personally am for it in principle, I just think they make a right hash of it in practice. Well I think most of us can agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I don't see that as having any bearing on the issue. As I said above, those of us who are doing well in our society have a moral obligation to help those who aren't. As Ronaldus Magnus said in his 1981 SOTU address "The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change." I do not agree at all that taxes or government should be used to change social status. Or as Chris Christie said to Warren Buffet (and I'm paraphrasing) "Cut a damn check if you don't think you're paying enough!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I don't see that as having any bearing on the issue. As I said above, those of us who are doing well in our society have a moral obligation to help those who aren't. As Ronaldus Magnus said in his 1981 SOTU address "The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change." I do not agree at all that taxes or government should be used to change social status. Or as Chris Christie said to Warren Buffet (and I'm paraphrasing) "Cut a damn check if you don't think you're paying enough!" Chris Christie is a moron. Chris Christie is the same asshole that veto'd the gay marriage bill in New Jersey. Chris Christie will probably die from stuffing his gullet with Chik Fil A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Chris Christie is a moron. Chris Christie is the same asshole that veto'd the gay marriage bill in New Jersey. Chris Christie will probably die from stuffing his gullet with Chik Fil A. Well, at least we're not bitter. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Everyone else was showing theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnstableArk Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I should note that many of the questions didn't apply to my grey areas or where I stand with on issues neutrally. Might be different if I take it again, but there it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 As Ronaldus Magnus said in his 1981 SOTU address "The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change." I do not agree at all that taxes or government should be used to change social status. I both agree and disagree. I think the government should only tax as much as is necessary to fund its legitimate programs (which includes social programs). However, that said, I think that people with more money are better able to bear the burden of taxes and so should be taxed at a higher rate. I don't think that the government needs to completely even everyone's incomes out or anything like that, but I do think that we have an obligation to ensure that everyone in society is able to live at a certain basic level, which includes adequate food, housing, health care, education, clothing, etc. Or as Chris Christie said to Warren Buffet (and I'm paraphrasing) "Cut a damn check if you don't think you're paying enough!" That doesn't solve the problem of other people who aren't paying enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I don't see that as having any bearing on the issue. As I said above, those of us who are doing well in our society have a moral obligation to help those who aren't. As Ronaldus Magnus said in his 1981 SOTU address "The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change." I do not agree at all that taxes or government should be used to change social status. What is "legitimate government purposes" then? And I'm pretty sure the £45 a month I get on JSA, or the free healthcare through NHS, is changing my social status much (well beyond not being homeless.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I don't see that as having any bearing on the issue. As I said above, those of us who are doing well in our society have a moral obligation to help those who aren't. As Ronaldus Magnus said in his 1981 SOTU address "The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change." I do not agree at all that taxes or government should be used to change social status. Or as Chris Christie said to Warren Buffet (and I'm paraphrasing) "Cut a damn check if you don't think you're paying enough!" That's what you think its about? Changing people's social class? Maybe its to, I don't know help those less unfortunate then you? Those who can't find jobs in this very difficult economic times? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Been a long time. First point: whether the Catholic non-church institutions tolerate insurance programs that pay for contraception or force female employees to buy it out of pocket, they're still paying indirectly for contraception. The point, from the Catholic Church's side, is really to reduce their employees' use of contraception (and, consequently, casual sex out of wedlock) by making it costlier for said employees. Second point: An unregulated economy would be a nightmare. If some regulation is required, why is tax an illegitmate method? And if it is okay to legislate social change, why not through taxation? I doubt Ronnie Raygun had many answers, being an empty-headed Hollywood actor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Chris Christie is a moron. Chris Christie is the same asshole that veto'd the gay marriage bill in New Jersey. Chris Christie will probably die from stuffing his gullet with Chik Fil A. Well, at least we're not bitter. Hardly. He was a corrupt lawyer before, ordering unauthorized GPS tracking and all sorts of other seedy shit. He's scum, so of course he found a place in New Jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 TIL Ronald Reagan was Ronaldo Magnus. (minor request: in future for those of us who sturggle with keeping up with your lots politics as it is, maybe don't use seemingly random names?) Also from my understanding wasn't "reaganomics" considered a bit shit? (I don't know the full policy and result, please don't bite my head off if that's not the case) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I WIN MOTHERFUCKERS Where's the questionaire for this? I missed the link somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Pirate Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Kind of felt like some of those questions were a little open-ended, but otherwise I think my results were pretty accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.