conservatives tell me that we shouldn't have social programs "because it's my money". they say . . .

Question

if i want them so bad, i should fund them myself.

by that philosophy -- we being able to choose where are tax money goes to -- how should i let the irs know that i don't support the iraq war, and thus do not want my tax money going towards it? this tax write off will allow me to help fund the social programs, like they mentioned. plus the conservatives will be the only ones paying the 1 trillion dollar bill that goes with the iraq war. so everyone's happy.

eldude, i'm simply pointing out the logical inconsistencies of the GOP stances.

Answer 1

If you actually read the constitution you would have your answer..

its all summerized in the first lines

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PROVIDE for Defense, PROMOTE ( not provide) general welfare, SECURE liberty...

Answer 2

Frankly, seeing a lot of big heads lopped off in desperate moves by big corporations, I bet many Conservatives will be applying for what they might label as "Socialist" Programs. I wonder how they will feel about Social Darwinism when it affects their mortgages, their bill payments, their bills, and it is their kids that suffer? I also wonder how their kindred will treat them when they are forced to receive money from social programs to avoid going belly up. Don't even think about healthcare in these circumstances when even an inusurance copay is a death threat to an airtight budget. Will they have a change of heart once they're in complete survival mode? Or will they be bitter that they've been forced to betray their principles? Again, will their Party compatriots cut them loose like some primitive cultures do with the old or sick to fend for themselves? Stay tuned... I'm hoping they have a paradigm change once they find there is little, if any, compassion in conservatism.

Answer 3

So How is that a question?
But just to clarify some points:
We (as conservatives) believe that the government is growing too large and supplying too much of the peoples programs etc...
The founding fathers believed that government should be limited to enforcing the laws, and protecting the people's freedoms and rights.
Our government has overstepped the boundaries that our founding fathers saw fit to lay, and now we have social programs that are unnecessary to pay taxes too.
It used to be the Churches and other non-government organizations that would supply the peoples needs in these areas. And that system used to work perfectly well. Then the government needed 'something else to do', and the people wanted to focus more on themselves, and not as much on the masses.
We are victims of the times.

And on the taxes for the war: It is the peoples responsibility to stand by the leaders that get elected, whether or not you agree with their politic party and ideals. While you may not want to support the war, you should help supply them with the funds needed to keep our soldiers...Americans! alive. Whether or not you feel that they should be brought back home, or whether they should stay in Iraq, it shouldn't mar you sense of patriotism, and freedoms of our country. The ability to fulfill that which we start is necessary to uphold our countries superiority and reach of arm in terms of spreading democracy.

So the 'conservatives' saying that we shouldn't have social programs shouldn't affect how we pay taxes. We need to refocus on our founding fathers original intent, when we were a unified nation.
I think that th leftists groups (democrats) have misconstrued many conservatives ideals and words to mean something that was never even implied...

Answer 4

I think about that all the time. At tax time you can check a box saying where you want your money spent.

I'd rather fund any social program than to spend anymore of my tax dollars on the invasion in Iraq....it's a waste and it's not producing anything positive.

We're so far in the red it'll take 2 presidential terms to get us back in the black.

Answer 5

The taxes that we currently have go to where the govenment chooses they go. One of the problems with social programs is that as the ones we have are increased or new ones come along it means more taxes and most of us think we pay more than our fair share to begin with. The "because it's my money" argument mostly has to do witht the fact that social programs don't force people to try to help themselves. If we get Universal Healthcare people are not going to be forced to quit smoking, eat healthy, practice safe sex, etc... and so those of us that work hard have to pay for other people's bad habits and unhealthy practices, and it is not fair to make one person pay for how someone else chooses to live their life. Their are similar types of problems with any social program that exists or that democrats want to create. We all make decisions and right or wrong we should live with the consequences of our decisions. If I choose to smoke a carton of cigarettes per day that is my choice and noone but me should be forced to pay for that decision. Now there are charities, churches and programs that are not government run that are there to help people and if you choose to donate money so those programs can help people and those programs want to help people no matter what decisions they make in life then that is a coice and not something forced on us. I personally give thousands of dollars per year to my church and they use that money to help people with almost any need and for most needs they have no special requirements and will help almost anyone with any problem. The reason I don't have a problem with that is that I choose to give them that money and don't care what they do with it even if they help someone pay medical bills for unsafe sex or anything else I would generally disagree with. The difference is choice versus being forced. I should be able to choose what to do with my money short of what the government already takes from me without being forced to pay more taxes to support other people. This also allows me to choose not to give money to my church when I can't afford it so I can pay my own bills and not have to rely on someone else. Most republicans have no problem donating money even to poor people when it is by choice, but we have a problem being forced to do more than we are already doing and even would prefer more tax cuts or moving to a fair tax in order to allow us to choose where our money goes.

Answer 6

you con posters are so sad. when we say that social programs are needed, you say not my money. when you provide for foreigners as we are doing in iraq that is okay. that is defense. it is okay for you to disagree, but not anyone else. i'm tired of weasels like the con posters calling me a libtard or lazy and idle. you generalize, but liberals can't. you know nothing about me, yet when you open your mouths with your empty threats and slander, you are so proud of yourselves. i didn't spend 8 yrs in the military for whiny weasels like you republican/cons. go worship at the source of your knowledge, a draft dodger pres and vp, and crude con journalists who tell you how to think. no original thoughts in your minds. i feel for ya, honeys....

Answer 7

"Conservatives" have maintained huge "social" programs.
Only in 2006 it was over 80 billion dollars welfare for corporates.

Answer 8

There is no question here. Nice rant.

ADDED: Nope, that question mark does not connote a question, as your e-mail implies. That question mark connotes you telling someone else what their philosophical stance is. I'll play, though: We have representative government which voted for Iraq and continues to fund it. The Liberal social spending (and other pork) continues to get the veto pen. That's our US republic and that's just the way it works.

Answer 9

Sorry Priori, but when some lunatics with towels over their heads and bombs around their waists want to kill me, I don’t have a problem spending my tax money in a Government that is willing to protect my azz. Unless you tell me that able working welfare recipients are willing to throw themselves into “the bombers” to save me, your argument with me is lost.

Answer 10

If we didn't have social programs we could have more wars.Yippeeeeee......
That would make the adulterous,child molesting, cross dressing,bathroom foot tappers extremely excited...............