Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...that liberals love to have government take your money...and then give it back "with strings"...

In another thread, TTBF came up with the standard zing attempt when someone complained about strings attached to federal funds...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:you have the right to refuse the federal money and be all independent and whatnot...

so - nut up and do it... the feds aren't forcing anyone to take the money... there are no guns to heads...

imagine that, money comes with strings attached...

So, how come I can't attach strings to my money when the feds forcibly take it from me....but they can attach strings when they give it back...

Yes, imagine if every citizen was allowed to attach string to their tax money.

As I fill out my tax return... Dear US government, I give you this money with the caveat that you make marijuana legal. Thanks! -KYJelly

Because they are the government and you aren't.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Yes, imagine if every citizen was allowed to attach string to their tax money.

As I fill out my tax return... Dear US government, I give you this money with the caveat that you make marijuana legal. Thanks! -KYJelly

My question about people attaching strings was rhetorical...of course we can't do that...

So, why do we accept the feds attaching strings when they give it back...

A school lunch program (the original thread) should provide lunch...without strings attached...

Road money should be provided for roads...with strings like speed limits attached...

Dear US Government. Here is my tax return, which is $3,500 higher than it would be if you recognized same-sex marriage.

Please send me a refund until you stop treating me as a second class citizen.







R

dbackjon wrote:Dear US Government. Here is my tax return, which is $3,500 higher than it would be if you recognized same-sex marriage.

AHA! NOW we know why you want to get married so badly.

Rosie's available again


It's over: Rosie O'Donnell splits from girlfriend after a year
dailymail.co.uk ^ | 2/22/2011 | dailymail.co.uk

Comedian Rosie O'Donnell has split from her girlfriend, Tracy Kachtick-Anders.

The former TV talk show host, who has four children, confirmed she was dating Kachtick-Anders, a Texas artist and mother of six, in January last year.
They are understood to have now parted ways, but remain on good terms, according to the New York Post.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Col Hogan wrote:...that liberals love to have government take your money...and then give it back "with strings"...

In another thread, TTBF came up with the standard zing attempt when someone complained about strings attached to federal funds...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:you have the right to refuse the federal money and be all independent and whatnot...

so - nut up and do it... the feds aren't forcing anyone to take the money... there are no guns to heads...

imagine that, money comes with strings attached...

So, how come I can't attach strings to my money when the feds forcibly take it from me....but they can attach strings when they give it back...

doling money out without regard for the outcome? this is what you're advocating? seriously?

Col Hogan wrote:...that liberals love to have government take your money...and then give it back "with strings"...

In another thread, TTBF came up with the standard zing attempt when someone complained about strings attached to federal funds...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:you have the right to refuse the federal money and be all independent and whatnot...

so - nut up and do it... the feds aren't forcing anyone to take the money... there are no guns to heads...

imagine that, money comes with strings attached...

So, how come I can't attach strings to my money when the feds forcibly take it from me....but they can attach strings when they give it back...

AKA living in a democracy with 300+million people.

Is it acceptable for someone to hold you at gunpoint and rob you, as long as they use the money they rob you for for charity? That is what the government does after all

youngterrier wrote:Is it acceptable for someone to hold you at gunpoint and rob you, as long as they use the money they rob you for for charity? That is what the government does after all

Not anywhere close to what the government does. If you truly feel like collecting taxes is equivalent to armed robbery... you should probably do something about it (not that you have any experience paying taxes or anything).

youngterrier wrote:Is it acceptable for someone to hold you at gunpoint and rob you, as long as they use the money they rob you for for charity? That is what the government does after all

what a load of waffle.

you ARE your government, and so am I. Our government derives its power from the consent of the governed... and while most Americans may grouse about things... it still has that consent...

Bottom line is that most sane people in the USA believe we should pay some taxes to keep our country running and protected.

The government should use our tax dollars for:

Military
Infrastructure
Some Education
and the people that are physically and mentally unable to take care of themselves.

Thats it, the rest is simply wealth redistribution to people who dont want to work hard or people that just want to steal wealth for themselves. Both parties are guilty of this.

I also believe everyone should have the same federal tax rate, whatever it is 15-19%. No exceptions for corporations, poor, rich, religious. Everyone pays and we have little waste. If that were the case there would be a lot less people bitching about our tax dollars being wasted.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

youngterrier wrote:Is it acceptable for someone to hold you at gunpoint and rob you, as long as they use the money they rob you for for charity? That is what the government does after all

Not anywhere close to what the government does. If you truly feel like collecting taxes is equivalent to armed robbery... you should probably do something about it (not that you have any experience paying taxes or anything).

pay what we want you to pay or go to jail. Seems like armed robbery to me

youngterrier wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Not anywhere close to what the government does. If you truly feel like collecting taxes is equivalent to armed robbery... you should probably do something about it (not that you have any experience paying taxes or anything).

pay what we want you to pay or go to jail. Seems like armed robbery to me

you ARE your government... we ELECT people to represent us - ergo WE make the laws.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

youngterrier wrote:Is it acceptable for someone to hold you at gunpoint and rob you, as long as they use the money they rob you for for charity? That is what the government does after all

what a load of waffle.

you ARE your government, and so am I. Our government derives its power from the consent of the governed... and while most Americans may grouse about things... it still has that consent...

The government doesn't have my consent to take my money. It has your and others' consent to take my money. The economic rights of the minority are not respected. Just because majority of the people believe I should do something doesn't mean I should do it. majority of this country is christian, and had there not been a first amendment, the concept you apply could mean that the rights of the non-christians could be taken away; afterall it is by consent of the governed. That may be a logic leap to you but the second amendment is in a sense repealed in places across the country in the name of the consent of the governed. Look, I'm not on a rant against taxes in general, they are necessary to run a just society, but how can you tell me that the concept of an income tax is compatible with that of a free society when essentially it's theme is that the government owns you and everything you own and graciously allows you to keep it and can come in at any time and take it from you?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

youngterrier wrote: pay what we want you to pay or go to jail. Seems like armed robbery to me

you ARE your government... we ELECT people to represent us - ergo WE make the laws.

The majority makes the laws, and under your logic the minority should not have any rights if they contradict with what the majority wants.

youngterrier wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
you ARE your government... we ELECT people to represent us - ergo WE make the laws.

The majority makes the laws, and under your logic the minority should not have any rights if they contradict with what the majority wants.

If the minority doesnt like whats going on they leave the state of Wisconsin and dont do their jobs they were elected to do.

Let's make a law taking away all the money of the people with $1 billion or more. If it passes it's totally fair because it's by the consent of the governed. Granted, the only one it affects are the ones who don't consent of that law being passed but they don't have enough votes to keep it from passing, therefore it is totally fair. consent of the governed. Majority has rights. Minority doesn't. Just because majority of the people agree with it doesn't mean it is just. In a republic the rights of the minority are respected and our founders understood this.

Being a minority in a democracy is rough. Just sayin'.

kalm wrote:Being a minority in a democracy is rough. Just sayin'.

which is why we live in a Republic (but I got the joke)

dude - that's what the Constitution is all about - majority rules, but the basic rights of the minorities are protected... frankly it's part of the genius of our system...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:dude - that's what the Constitution is all about - majority rules, but the basic rights of the minorities are protected... frankly it's part of the genius of our system...

Ummm, no.

The Constitution is NOTHING about majority rule. Majority rule is a democracy, and the founders wanted NOTHING to do with democracies. Majority rule is tyranny of the minority. Do yourself a favor and read the Federalist Papers. You will find out just how much our founders hated democracy.

The Federalist Papers are talking about a different type of majority... that found in a pure democracy... where if 51% of the people supported a measure... the measure passes.

In our government, the majority of elected officials do rule. If a measure carries the majority in the House, the motion passes... even if it is by one vote. If a majority of justices on the Supreme Court rule one way... their rule is law... even if it's 5-4. Majority rules. The exception is the Senate where it usually takes 60 votes to pass... but, that is due to Senate rules, not the Constitution. There are various protections for the minority (like the Senate filibuster) and that's what TTBF said.

The majority of elected officials rule. That's kinda why elections are a big deal. If the minority and the majority were on equal footing... why would it matter who controlled the Senate or the House?

Skjellyfetti wrote:The Federalist Papers are talking about a different type of majority... that found in a pure democracy... where if 51% of the people supported a measure... the measure passes.

Which is why we have the electoral college.

In our government, the majority of elected officials do rule. If a measure carries the majority in the House, the motion passes... even if it is by one vote. If a majority of justices on the Supreme Court rule one way... their rule is law... even if it's 5-4. Majority rules. The exception is the Senate where it usually takes 60 votes to pass... but, that is due to Senate rules, not the Constitution. There are various protections for the minority (like the Senate filibuster) and that's what TTBF said.

The majority of elected officials rule. That's kinda why elections are a big deal. If the minority and the majority were on equal footing... why would it matter who controlled the Senate or the House?

Which is why we have a republic and NOT a democracy.

You're beginning to learn a few things, KY.