If we give them a lower tax rate don’t we have a right to ask how they're spending th

If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.

No one should have the right to tell someone how to spend thier own money, unless of course it comes from the government.

and when one day when one person is born with all the money we can all do just as He says, like the good old days, when the people didn't have to worry about what to do you do as the King tells you....

And just how will that one person obtain all the money in a free market system? Can't happen. While of course capitalism and a free market is exercised by imperfect people, there will be imperfections and there will be inequities. But in every place in which it has been tried, it has produced far more prosperity for far more people than any other economic system.

The fallacy in the statist/liberal/leftist/big government advocate thinking is that government is somehow more honorable than is the private sector. The people in government are no more perfect than are those in the private sector, are no less self serving, and with power to take property from others and without a profit motive to restrain them or encourage productive results, are far more likely to be corrupt than is the private sector.

In the private sector, there is no power to take property from others without their consent, and the profit motive encourages policy that maximizes results and thereby benefits the economy as a whole.
 
A coordinated mail service isn't so much a corruption of the Founders intent and that, along with regulation of interstate commerce, could easily fall within the necessity of the federal government to administer a unified nation. Unfortunately, rather than contract with the private sector to provide the service, the government chose to do it themselves with the inherent inefficiency and runaway costs that inevitably are built into government programs.

I can mail a letter from LA to NY for less than 50 cents with the post office, it's next competitor charges 6 times as much. Medicare provides health care with a tenth the admin costs of the private sector, the only time the government isn't the best is when the GOP sign a contract with their buddies to give them a bunch of taxpayers money like here in AZ a while back when the GOP who run this place starting buying people huge SUVs with taxpayer money in the name of green energy, it almost broke us and did run the GOP state senate leader out of the state house.

I will concede that the post office was separated from the general budget and was allowed to operate like a business with good results for awhile. It was so successful that our fearless leaders could not resist raiding its profits which they could do as the Post Office is still a government agency. And with the Democrats taking over Congress in 2007, they did just that. And THAT has again put the Post Office into serious jeopardy.

After running up billions of dollars in losses subsidized by the federal government from 1942-71, the postal service was made a quasi-independent non-profit enterprise (the United States Postal Service, or USPS) that no longer receives any direct government subsidy. Financially, USPS held its own until 2007, but since then cumulative losses have amounted to about $20 billion, and it is expected to lose another $8 billion this fiscal year. Obviously, this cannot continue much longer without a resumption of government subsidies, so this is an excellent time to consider major changes in the postal service and the economic environment in which it operates.
In Trouble Once Again: What to do About US Post Office? Becker - The Becker-Posner Blog
 
I can mail a letter from LA to NY for less than 50 cents with the post office, it's next competitor charges 6 times as much. Medicare provides health care with a tenth the admin costs of the private sector, the only time the government isn't the best is when the GOP sign a contract with their buddies to give them a bunch of taxpayers money like here in AZ a while back when the GOP who run this place starting buying people huge SUVs with taxpayer money in the name of green energy, it almost broke us and did run the GOP state senate leader out of the state house.

I will concede that the post office was separated from the general budget and was allowed to operate like a business with good results for awhile. It was so successful that our fearless leaders could not resist raiding its profits which they could do as the Post Office is still a government agency. And with the Democrats taking over Congress in 2007, they did just that. And THAT has again put the Post Office into serious jeopardy.

After running up billions of dollars in losses subsidized by the federal government from 1942-71, the postal service was made a quasi-independent non-profit enterprise (the United States Postal Service, or USPS) that no longer receives any direct government subsidy. Financially, USPS held its own until 2007, but since then cumulative losses have amounted to about $20 billion, and it is expected to lose another $8 billion this fiscal year. Obviously, this cannot continue much longer without a resumption of government subsidies, so this is an excellent time to consider major changes in the postal service and the economic environment in which it operates.
In Trouble Once Again: What to do About US Post Office? Becker - The Becker-Posner Blog

It was the GOP who required the Post Office to over fund their pension and it was they who fought changing it, a fight they lost as I recall.

The proof that cons actually know how full of shit their talk about "wasteful" government when they said if people had a public option fully paid for through premiums it would put the private companies out of business and become a defacto take over, that is true given a chance people wil get the most for their money when it comes to health care, that's why they agreed to a mandate, put not a public option.
 
I will concede that the post office was separated from the general budget and was allowed to operate like a business with good results for awhile. It was so successful that our fearless leaders could not resist raiding its profits which they could do as the Post Office is still a government agency. And with the Democrats taking over Congress in 2007, they did just that. And THAT has again put the Post Office into serious jeopardy.

It was the GOP who required the Post Office to over fund their pension and it was they who fought changing it, a fight they lost as I recall.

The proof that cons actually know how full of shit their talk about "wasteful" government when they said if people had a public option fully paid for through premiums it would put the private companies out of business and become a defacto take over, that is true given a chance people wil get the most for their money when it comes to health care, that's why they agreed to a mandate, put not a public option.

Really? I thought you posted that the postal pension mandate happened during the Nixon administration. And if I remember correctly, both houses of Congress that would have passed that legislation were controlled by a substantial majority of Democrats. The Democrats have controlled at least one house of Congress and more often both houses of Congress most of the time for the last 100 years. Just keeping it honest.

Mandatory pensions provided to public employees for life, almost all at taxpayer expense, are immoral and unsustainable as state after state after state teetering on bankruptcy are now finding out. No politician should be able to obligate the taxpayer to pay massive unknown sums for decades into the future; most especially when the politician knows that he won't be around to bear the consequences of irresponsible fiscal legislation.

Going back to the OP, we desperately need real economics taught in the schools again, so that people are retrained in the honest concept that all the money is ours and we generate every penny of real wealth. Government generates no wealth and should not have the power to take ours and do with it any damn thing it wants to do.
 
If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.


Who's money is it? The way you put it, The STATE OWNS everything and let's us keep a portion of it!
I thought the individual OWNED the assets that generated the revenue and agreed to pay a portion in taxes!
 
Just the existance of this thread shows how the schools have failed us. I challenge the poster to post his budget and let's see if he is spending his money wisely or if he can do more to help the country, if he is wasting money on unneeded items it may be necessary to raise his taxes.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.


Who's money is it? The way you put it, The STATE OWNS everything and let's us keep a portion of it!
I thought the individual OWNED the assets that generated the revenue and agreed to pay a portion in taxes!

The last data posted stated that more than half of Americans are receiving some kind of government subsidy whether in the form of welfare (food stamps, TANF etc.), extended unemployment benefits, Medicaid, Pell grants, 'scientific' grants, etc. etc. etc. Yet there is a huge outcry of protest when anybody suggests that the people receiving these benefits be drug tested or otherwise be held accountable for what they do with the money that others earned and they receive as an entitlement or government benefit,.

And now we have the same people who strenuously object to any suggestion that welfare recipients should have to prove that they use their tax payer provided benefits productively. . . .

. . .those same people are suggesting that we should give acccount of how we use the money that we earned that the government alllows us to keep?

Lord, with a mentality like that, how far are we from being a totalitarian state?
 
Last edited:
It was the GOP who required the Post Office to over fund their pension and it was they who fought changing it, a fight they lost as I recall.

The proof that cons actually know how full of shit their talk about "wasteful" government when they said if people had a public option fully paid for through premiums it would put the private companies out of business and become a defacto take over, that is true given a chance people wil get the most for their money when it comes to health care, that's why they agreed to a mandate, put not a public option.

Really? I thought you posted that the postal pension mandate happened during the Nixon administration. And if I remember correctly, both houses of Congress that would have passed that legislation were controlled by a substantial majority of Democrats. The Democrats have controlled at least one house of Congress and more often both houses of Congress most of the time for the last 100 years. Just keeping it honest.

Mandatory pensions provided to public employees for life, almost all at taxpayer expense, are immoral and unsustainable as state after state after state teetering on bankruptcy are now finding out. No politician should be able to obligate the taxpayer to pay massive unknown sums for decades into the future; most especially when the politician knows that he won't be around to bear the consequences of irresponsible fiscal legislation.

Going back to the OP, we desperately need real economics taught in the schools again, so that people are retrained in the honest concept that all the money is ours and we generate every penny of real wealth. Government generates no wealth and should not have the power to take ours and do with it any damn thing it wants to do.

More truth that will pass unnoticed by "progressives", if not openly scorned and ridiculed.
 
If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

You think that tax cuts, taking less of people's money away, money that they earned, is the same as government spending. All money belongs to the government, so whatever they don't take is spending.

Democrats express this theme over and over and over. My question is, why does being labeled a socialist or a Marxist bother you? Seriously? If you advocate it, why does the name for your beliefs bother you?
 
This is good stuff right here. You see how democrats think? The money you make by working isn't actually yours, it's the governments.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
This is good stuff right here. You see how democrats think? The money you make by working isn't actually yours, it's the governments.

How much did Romney "work" for that 13 million last year?

Even so you're full of shit, I said no such thing, what I said is the tax payers have a right to expect results from their investments, if we give people tax breaks because they are job creators then we have not only the right but the duty to make sure those jobs are there or end the tax breaks.
 
Last edited:
This is good stuff right here. You see how democrats think? The money you make by working isn't actually yours, it's the governments.

The thing about cons is they say give'em the breaks but don't look at what they do just trust us, it's the same all over the con world, closed board rooms, private plans, like Romney's plan to balance the budget.
 
This is good stuff right here. You see how democrats think? The money you make by working isn't actually yours, it's the governments.

How much did Romney "work" for that 13 million last year?

Your personal prejudices on the subject are immaterial. The indisputable fact is that he received the money from people who gave it to him in exchange for his services. All transactions were entirely voluntary. That's the meaning of the term "earn." Tax money, on the other hand, is taken by force.

Even so you're full of shit, I said no such thing, what I said is the tax payers have a right to expect results from their investments, if we give people tax breaks because they are job creators then we have not only the right but the duty to make sure those jobs are there or end the tax breaks.

What he said is correct. Tax cuts are not "investments." Democrats have to change the definition of every word they used because they are criminals trying to justify theft.
 
This is good stuff right here. You see how democrats think? The money you make by working isn't actually yours, it's the governments.

How much did Romney "work" for that 13 million last year?

Your personal prejudices on the subject are immaterial. The indisputable fact is that he received the money from people who gave it to him in exchange for his services. All transactions were entirely voluntary. That's the meaning of the term "earn." Tax money, on the other hand, is taken by force.

Even so you're full of shit, I said no such thing, what I said is the tax payers have a right to expect results from their investments, if we give people tax breaks because they are job creators then we have not only the right but the duty to make sure those jobs are there or end the tax breaks.

What he said is correct. Tax cuts are not "investments." Democrats have to change the definition of every word they used because they are criminals trying to justify theft.

Anyway, Democrats more often define 'spending' as 'investment' and justify tax increases because 'we have to invest in this or that'. THAT is what we should be demanding evidence of results for, but unfortunately we have a mostly partisan media who won't do that.

The idea that taxes are 'investments' is ludicrous on the face of it.
 
How much did Romney "work" for that 13 million last year?

Your personal prejudices on the subject are immaterial. The indisputable fact is that he received the money from people who gave it to him in exchange for his services. All transactions were entirely voluntary. That's the meaning of the term "earn." Tax money, on the other hand, is taken by force.

Even so you're full of shit, I said no such thing, what I said is the tax payers have a right to expect results from their investments, if we give people tax breaks because they are job creators then we have not only the right but the duty to make sure those jobs are there or end the tax breaks.

What he said is correct. Tax cuts are not "investments." Democrats have to change the definition of every word they used because they are criminals trying to justify theft.

Anyway, Democrats more often define 'spending' as 'investment' and justify tax increases because 'we have to invest in this or that'. THAT is what we should be demanding evidence of results for, but unfortunately we have a mostly partisan media who won't do that.

The idea that taxes are 'investments' is ludicrous on the face of it.

Here let me help you out a little, building a road is an investment sending troops into the desert to defend family honor is spending.
 
Your personal prejudices on the subject are immaterial. The indisputable fact is that he received the money from people who gave it to him in exchange for his services. All transactions were entirely voluntary. That's the meaning of the term "earn." Tax money, on the other hand, is taken by force.



What he said is correct. Tax cuts are not "investments." Democrats have to change the definition of every word they used because they are criminals trying to justify theft.

Anyway, Democrats more often define 'spending' as 'investment' and justify tax increases because 'we have to invest in this or that'. THAT is what we should be demanding evidence of results for, but unfortunately we have a mostly partisan media who won't do that.

The idea that taxes are 'investments' is ludicrous on the face of it.

Here let me help you out a little, building a road is an investment sending troops into the desert to defend family honor is spending.

Boy are you an idiot.

You think its the Govts money?? WOW guess all us taxpayers didn't bust our asses to earn our dollars. Dollars that we have to give to Govt to run the country.

Its not the Govts money. Its our money. We earned it. The Govt needs it to keep running. Unfortunately The Govt is good at wasting out hard earned money.

How the private sector uses its money is their business. Not yours.

If you have a problem with how they use their taxbreaks then you should have a problem with every citizen in this country who gets a tax break. Do you care how they spend that money??

Thought not.

Your a moron.
 
This is good stuff right here. You see how democrats think? The money you make by working isn't actually yours, it's the governments.

How much did Romney "work" for that 13 million last year?

Even so you're full of shit, I said no such thing, what I said is the tax payers have a right to expect results from their investments, if we give people tax breaks because they are job creators then we have not only the right but the duty to make sure those jobs are there or end the tax breaks.

Romney earned every penny of the money he has. And he put that money to work where it is still generating income for him and a lot of other people too. Smart people earn what they can and save a portion of it (that indirectly provides money for others to borrow) and/or invest a portion of it that grows it and indirectly benefits others.

A tax break is not investment. But every dollar left with the private sector will be spent which will be multiplied several times over in a healthy economy which in time will result in new business activity and new jobs, or it will be invested in the taxpayer’s own business or somebody else’s business (via the stock market) which will in time result in new business activity and new jobs, or it will be saved which, in a healthy economy, results in more money for people to borrow for projects that result in more business activity and new jobs.

The money the government confiscates from the people through taxes is always going to be partly swallowed up by the bureaucracy and, when spent, will never return the benefit to the economy as what the private sector will do. Every government job takes more money out of the economy than it returns to it.

That is not to say that there are no necessary or beneficial government services. But the government should do ONLY what cannot be done better by the private sector.

The money is not the government’s money it. It is our money. And the government will never spend our money as effectively as we will spend it ourselves.
 
This is good stuff right here. You see how democrats think? The money you make by working isn't actually yours, it's the governments.

How much did Romney "work" for that 13 million last year?

Even so you're full of shit, I said no such thing, what I said is the tax payers have a right to expect results from their investments, if we give people tax breaks because they are job creators then we have not only the right but the duty to make sure those jobs are there or end the tax breaks.

Romney earned every penny of the money he has. And he put that money to work where it is still generating income for him and a lot of other people too. Smart people earn what they can and save a portion of it (that indirectly provides money for others to borrow) and/or invest a portion of it that grows it and indirectly benefits others.

A tax break is not investment. But every dollar left with the private sector will be spent which will be multiplied several times over in a healthy economy which in time will result in new business activity and new jobs, or it will be invested in the taxpayer’s own business or somebody else’s business (via the stock market) which will in time result in new business activity and new jobs, or it will be saved which, in a healthy economy, results in more money for people to borrow for projects that result in more business activity and new jobs.

The money the government confiscates from the people through taxes is always going to be partly swallowed up by the bureaucracy and, when spent, will never return the benefit to the economy as what the private sector will do. Every government job takes more money out of the economy than it returns to it.

That is not to say that there are no necessary or beneficial government services. But the government should do ONLY what cannot be done better by the private sector.

The money is not the government’s money it. It is our money. And the government will never spend our money as effectively as we will spend it ourselves.

Jesus. He's a moron.
 
How much did Romney "work" for that 13 million last year?

Even so you're full of shit, I said no such thing, what I said is the tax payers have a right to expect results from their investments, if we give people tax breaks because they are job creators then we have not only the right but the duty to make sure those jobs are there or end the tax breaks.

Romney earned every penny of the money he has. And he put that money to work where it is still generating income for him and a lot of other people too. Smart people earn what they can and save a portion of it (that indirectly provides money for others to borrow) and/or invest a portion of it that grows it and indirectly benefits others.

A tax break is not investment. But every dollar left with the private sector will be spent which will be multiplied several times over in a healthy economy which in time will result in new business activity and new jobs, or it will be invested in the taxpayer’s own business or somebody else’s business (via the stock market) which will in time result in new business activity and new jobs, or it will be saved which, in a healthy economy, results in more money for people to borrow for projects that result in more business activity and new jobs.

The money the government confiscates from the people through taxes is always going to be partly swallowed up by the bureaucracy and, when spent, will never return the benefit to the economy as what the private sector will do. Every government job takes more money out of the economy than it returns to it.

That is not to say that there are no necessary or beneficial government services. But the government should do ONLY what cannot be done better by the private sector.

The money is not the government’s money it. It is our money. And the government will never spend our money as effectively as we will spend it ourselves.

Jesus. He's a moron.

No. He's probably quite bright. But he is a victim of the kool-ade drinkiing, brainwwashed segment of society who never had a solid course in economics and/or who has never been taught to think critically and/or who has been carefully conditioned to believe that government is the best solution to all our major problems, the best provider of all we need, and we are all beholden to it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top