The idea YOU SAY certain nations are advanced...doesn't impress me one bit. Elitists seem to gravitate to European Socialism.
My father never beat me, did your father molest you? That would seem more likely with your "liberal" ideas of character. Perhaps you would have character if your father taught you a work ethic. Snowflakes are entitled however.
I am with you against the wealthy sheltering American income. However Corporations shouldn't pay tax at all. Once an individual pulls that money out of a Corp, it is income. Then it should be taxed. I am against all tax shelters. My credo would be, equal treatment under the law, The tax code should be simple enough to be on a post card. The only reason for tax shelters and right offs is to swindle citizens.
Again, if you can transcend your airy-fairy ideological dogma and cite any single nation on earth that you deem superior to the first-world, democratic nations that all regulate capitalism and address the needs of their citizens, just name it. Pragmatism succeeds.
60% of what exactly? And what are the returns for this 60% cryptic fee of yours? You're still just repeating a cliche. I don't think that you understand how things work anymore than the guy who blames all mechanical problems on "the thingamabob".
Yes, and there are many other organizations that boast "giving to the poor" - Habitat for Humanity, Food Banks, Salvation Army, Homeless Shelters, etc. But your response is very non-committal. Are you saying that churches and these other organizations.should suffice in taking care of the poor? What this would mean is that only those that want to give, would give, and the selfish get off scott-free. The Scrooge syndrome - where the Scrooges of the world get wealthier. Kind of like Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life".
No, that's not what I meant. The government should take care of the poor, because it means that everyone who pays tax will have a share of the task. It can't be left up to churches because they will think the churches only have a responsibility to their own flock. I'm not sure how Islam works in this instance.
When you help the homeless you encourage them to keep living like that which in way means by helping them you are hurting them. And the reason they are homeless is because they didn't try to get a job or work hard in life and that is why they are that way.
Elitism does not gain respect from those you desire to oppress. Liberty belongs to the individual. I reject your " airy-fairy ideological dogma.". Collectivism you propose is just that. Your words intent on diminishing my character does not elevate your position.
No, I don't understand Swedish mentality. Just like you don't understand how things work in America. You're living a cliché because you never understood the liberty we have here. You have an elitist government that knows best how to spend your money. I do understand that much.
Very often they are mentally ill people who have difficulty managing their own affairs. There was a dramatic rise in homelessness after patient rights groups successfully lowered the bar as to what constituted competence in the 70's, resulting in many mental institutions releasing patients that really couldn't get on on their own in a day to day, week to week, month to month sort of way...and advocates now cook the books as to what constitutes "homelessness" to further confuse the issue. To me, if you had to move back in with mom because you are broke, you are not homeless, but some groups would classify you that way because your name is not on the mortgage/lease and you are not paying the bills.
Sorry to intervene here, but your statement "the churches only have a responsibility to their own flock" is simply not true. I could give a list of hundreds of examples that blow that statement right out of the water. Allow me to clarify what "I think" you said. Churches are "accountable" for their giving. Unlike government, their giving is apportioned to those that wish to "improve" their standing in life, whatever that may be. Giving does not just entail $$. It is the giving of time, and actual personal concern for the well being of people. Church giving is largely voluntary. The Government style of giving loses it's efficiency due to it's bureaucratic approach where money is siphoned off by the parasites and giving is often seasoned with a political intent.
Again, if you can get beyond your ideological dogmatism and pipe dreams, please enter the realm of reality for a moment and identify the actual national paradigm you would emulate. There are approximately 200 nations from which to choose. I prefer advanced democratic nations, but if you admire, i.e., Somalia for its sharply-contrasting minimalist approach to governance, you should honestly cite it.
Now you are on to something.... I honestly proclaim I prefer the minimal approach to government as it is only a necessary evil. I hold fast entirely the idea that "socialist systems" are absolutely "not advanced" as you have stated as they hand over their liberty to an elite group to entrust their responsibilities. Whatever is given, can be taken away. You use your "Somalia" example as a way to again, diminish. I prefer stronger , local governments that are accountable to the locale. We have states, counties, townships etc.
Equal treatment under the law, would require every single person within the government to be fired. And replaced with honest people. How do we find honest people?
What is your definition of a democratic nation? Or what is your definition of democrat? I'm just wandering, because despite what people think, America is a Constitutional Republic, and it always has been!
Your puerile evasion is laughable. All first world nations govern themselves via democratic elections. Now, is Somalia your model of minimal governance, or do you have another? Try not to run away from reality again.
Yes, but with the goal of training them to be self supporting. Not that I don't think you support that also, but its the part that seems too often discarded as specifics get argued.
Republic- noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. 4. (initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic. Democracy- noun, plural democracies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. 5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. Americans are at each others throat, over political affiliation. The two parties to choose from, by definition are extremely similar. America, quit voting for party, start voting for a person's credentials. Where they stand, principals, morals, leadership skills, bravery, courage, contributions to society (without fraud), education, past and who they have ties with, legislation they have voted for, and is that voting consistent and consistent to their principals and morals, success, failure, their good deeds, and of course their bad deeds for we all have them.
You're right ,that was a bad example. The churches can't be expected to take on the care of all of the Age pensioners. The government would probably like them too, but the very number of aged pensioners would preclude this. I would not like to have to depend on the charity of the church if I were frail and poverty stricken.
