Income Inequality?

[Cow Poke]

Your brain actually does work that way, despite your Jon Stewart style "hey I was just joking maaaan" type shenanigans, as does the brain of huge numbers of retarded conservatives who are busy helping people who hate them retain their wealth.

Bless your heart.

[Paprika]

Approximately how many homosexual marriages have been licensed since Windsor?

You made a claim that there would be a substantial drain, so I'm asking you to quantify it. Your burden, not mine.

Are you even trying to understand what I am saying? From this question, it seems like you are not.

It seems to me that you're avoiding the obvious implications; avarice can and does cause great harm to society and hence governments do make laws to protect against harm caused by avarice in the realm of financial speculation, for example.

[Cow Poke]

The other developed countries manage a much more equitable distribution of wealth; perhaps the USA can learn from them - obviously, it can be done. As it stands, the wealth disparity in the richest (for now) nation in the world is unconscionable:

Source: HuffingtonPost

The United States climbed from fifth place to the rank of most generous country in the world, according to a recent global study.

In its second annual study of 153 countries, the Charity Aid Foundation concluded that the U.S. has demonstrated "strong" behavior across all three criteria measured -- volunteering, helping strangers and donating money. The U.S. has increased its charity by 3 percentage points this year, up to $212 billion.

"The point to leave with American leaders is the world really needs America; it needs its generosity, its resource and spirit, and though times are really hard, this is the time we need to keep giving as much as we possibly can," Richard Harrison, director of research at the UK-based Charities Aid Foundation told The NonProfit Times.

© Copyright Original Source

So, you're advocating that the most charitable nation on the planet should learn from countries who are LESS charitable?

[seer]

So, you're advocating that the most charitable nation on the planet should learn from countries who are LESS charitable?

No CP, you don't get it, it is not charity unless the money goes to Tass' favorite left wing causes...

[Bill the Cat]

You made a claim that there would be a substantial drain, so I'm asking you to quantify it. Your burden, not mine.

It's simple deductive reasoning. I've identified the components of the deductive equation, now drink horsie.

It seems to me that you're avoiding the obvious implications; avarice can and does cause great harm to society and hence governments do make laws to protect against harm caused by avarice in the realm of financial speculation, for example.

That's exactly what I said. Avarice CAN cause harm, but not necessarily. I was speaking specifically of our Christian response to non-believers' business practices. We have no mandate from Christ to force them to be charitable. We have no mandate from Christ to force them to reject avarice.

[Paprika]

It's simple deductive reasoning. I've identified the components of the deductive equation, now drink horsie.

Your case to make. By the way, are you proposing that all the lost estate taxes will be identical in value?

That's exactly what I said. Avarice CAN cause harm, but not necessarily. I was speaking specifically of our Christian response to non-believers' business practices. We have no mandate from Christ to force them to be charitable. We have no mandate from Christ to force them to reject avarice.

I have never claimed that we have a mandate from Christ to force others to be charitable. But now that you do bring up the idea of mandate: do we have a mandate from Christ to limit civil marriage or maximise government revenue?

Do you think that the government has a responsibility to intervene to protect society from the greed of speculative investors?

[Cow Poke]

No CP, you don't get it, it is not charity unless the money goes to Tass' favorite left wing causes...

Liberals NEED a massive poor uneducated class, or they would never get elected to office.

[Cow Poke]

We have no mandate from Christ to force them to be charitable. We have no mandate from Christ to force them to reject avarice.

Just like we have no mandate from Christ to force them to follow Him.

[Bill the Cat]

Your case to make. By the way, are you proposing that all the lost estate taxes will be identical in value?

I'll tell you what, I'll even give you another bit of data from the CBO:

CBO estimates that additional Social Security benefits would total about $50 million in 2005 and grow to $350 million in 2014 (equivalent to $250 million in today’s dollars[from 2004], adjusted for intervening wage growth and cost-of-living increases

Now, the CBO does not consider that to be of any real impact to the overall trillions of dollars budget, but that money STILL has to come from somewhere, and the already suffocating Social Security program will have to manage yet another increase to outlays.

I have never claimed that we have a mandate from Christ to force others to be charitable. But now that you do bring up the idea of mandate: do we have a mandate from Christ to limit civil marriage or maximise government revenue?

No. Those are more practical considerations.

Do you think that the government has a responsibility to intervene to protect society from the greed of speculative investors?

No. Because their only weapons are useless in a global economy.

[Paprika]

I'll tell you what, I'll even give you another bit of data from the CBO:

That original claim just a bit too tough, I see. Weren't you one of the chaps who think that the government should be smaller and levy lower taxes? If so, why do you object to the government getting less taxes?

CBO estimates that additional Social Security benefits would total about $50 million in 2005 and grow to $350 million in 2014 (equivalent to $250 million in today’s dollars[from 2004], adjusted for intervening wage growth and cost-of-living increases

Now, the CBO does not consider that to be of any real impact to the overall trillions of dollars budget, but that money STILL has to come from somewhere, and the already suffocating Social Security program will have to manage yet another increase to outlays.

Source, please.

No. Those are more practical considerations.

Okay.

No. Because their only weapons are useless in a global economy.

So if, as you say, the government is 'useless' in preventing harm from avarice of financial speculators, would you agree then that there's no need to have any financial regulation at all?

[Darth Executor]

Just like we have no mandate from Christ to force them to follow Him.

We also have no mandate from Christ to force them to not murder. Legalize murder now, it's the TRUE conservative position.

[Bill the Cat]

That original claim just a bit too tough, I see.

What I consider substantial and what the CBO considers "a great impact" are different. Hundreds of millions of dollars from just one program is substantial.

Weren't you one of the chaps who think that the government should be smaller and levy lower taxes?

In a way. I think taxes should be flat and simple. And I think that government should be in the business of defense and public service. You know, those things that the Preamble talks about?

If so, why do you object to the government getting less taxes?

Because they would have to pay more out in many cases.

Source, please.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...exmarriage.pdf

So if, as you say, the government is 'useless' in preventing harm from avarice of financial speculators, would you agree then that there's no need to have any financial regulation at all?

Of course not. The tools that are available can be beneficial (such as what happened with Bernie Madoff). But they are ineffective against speculations. And often just wrongheaded.

http://business.nd.edu/Study_of_Fina..._Speculation_/

[Paprika]

Because they would have to pay more out in many cases.

Except that your original point was that they would collect less tax revenues; from your own link, "A second effect of same-sex marriages on federal revenues could come through the estate tax, but that effect is almost certain to be small." However, I take it that you're dropping that original point and are arguing that "substantial drain" would arise from increased payouts, which is undesirable.

Now, yes, your link does say that "CBO estimates that additional Social Security benefits would total about $50 million in 2005 and grow to $350 million in 2014 (equivalent to $250 million in today’s dollars[from 2004], adjusted for intervening wage growth and cost-of-living increases", but does it not also say that "Revenues would be slightly higher: by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010 and by $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 through 2014"?

Of course not. The tools that are available can be beneficial (such as what happened with Bernie Madoff).

What are these tools, and how are they beneficial?

[Sparko]

Because there is no possible way to tell when someone is greedy, not even his many luxurious houses, cars, and other belongings. None, zilch, nada.

How much luxury did Abraham have? Or Moses? Or David? Or Solomon? Or the Pope today?

Reading the bible, I see God using a lot of rich people as his chosen leaders, and they all had luxurious belongings compared to the people they led or lived around. I don't recall God telling them to give away all of their riches, do you?

Also, I bet if you compared your lifestyle and belongings to someone who lives in poverty in Ethiopia, for example, you would be living in luxury. Does that make you greedy? Should you give away everything you own and live in a ditch somewhere?

[rogue06]

Liberals NEED a massive poor uneducated class, or they would never get elected to office.

The book "What's the Matter With Kansas," written by a liberal to explain why the poor often vote against what he perceives to be their own best interest places some doubt on that hypothesis.

I think that it is as of late more like they need a massive number of folks who feel like they are victims whether or not this is true.