red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #81
No. Thank you. I think that this thread has just about run its course. We can just agree to end it on a happy, funny note. Cheers to you RSR.
As you wish
Cheers
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. Thank you. I think that this thread has just about run its course. We can just agree to end it on a happy, funny note. Cheers to you RSR.
You two are going to drive me nuts.
Well, I agree with part of what you said. Retired Americans do also gain a substantial portion of their incomes from capital gains. However, why not employ a graduated capital gains system, taxing at lower rates for lower returns on income. That way, someone who earns millions each year won't be paying 15%, but retirees still will be able to.
This just isn't true. Tax revenues are up, but not remotely at a level to fund the government right now. A few days ago, I posted a link to a Washington Post article, where a former member of Bush's economic team stated that the higher revenues were in all likelihood not attributable to the lower taxes.
It is about finding the right mix - the right tax level - sufficient to adequately fund the government and still interfere as little as possible with market forces. Take your last line to its logical conclusion, and it would suggest that no taxation is the best approach, but that is obviously not true.
I have a basic question:
Why are you interested in figureing out ways to give government more and more money? What they do spend on right now is far from efficient going to pork barrell and pet projects.
Shouldn't we be putting are foot down and say no more? I know you think government needs all this money to fund stuff, but the more money you give them the more control they have over your life and how you can live. We shouldn't be finding ways to get more money to government. We should be finding ways to make them efficiently spend what we already give them and make them keep a budget.
That is a good question, as I think I agree with you if you are saying that government spends our money badly and wastes much of it.
I guess I think that the good outweighs the bad. I have come to expect earmarks, pork barrel projects, and inefficient spending generally. However, lost in all of the press about the bad stuff, I think government also spends a lot of money towards good endeavors. I am thankful for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the Justice Department Civil Rights Division,etc.
I guess I accept the waste because I think that the waste will always be there, whether the government spends a lot or a little, and I wouldn't sacrifice these types of important (IMO) programs to rid ourselves of that waste.
What I'm leary of is the fine line. Speaking in the most idealistic and broad terms there are only a couple things governmetn should be spending on: the military, Infrastructure (civic buildings, roads, things that improve the community that all will see benefits from), and programs for those that can't help themselves.
The last one is where the fine line is. What I see is that we are slowly creeping from the point of neccessity towards one more akin to government benevolence, or one that thinks it is anyway. Social Security is a good example. I'm not a fan of FDR or anything, but the times made something like SS a neccessity. You couldn't turn to your neighbor because pretty much everyone was down on their luck so FDR created a safety net in SS for people who had know means of getting anything could get something. Since it's original inception it has expanded and transformed greatly into beyond what was original intended, because someone tried to travel down the slippery slope of "well let's use for this cause it's good for peopel".
If we continue down that same slippery slope government in the end will be the only entity allowed to tell you what's good for you. Even you won't get to make that decision anymore.
It is an extremely fine line from what government needs to have in order to help those that can't help themselves, and what governemnt thinks it needs. Perhaps the only government conspiracy I beleive in is that our government is truly trying to breed dependence. they want us to believe we need them for things we don't really need them for. I don't need them to tell me whether or not i can eat food with trans-fats in it for example. It shouldn't be about governmnt legislating what it thinks is best for you and thus making illegal what it thinks isn't (i.e. the proliferation of smoking bans (no I don't smoke)). If you want a free country taht means the freedom to make bad choices too and learning from the consequences.
I agree with some of what you say (especially towards the bottom - trans-fats, smoking, etc.), but we obviously disagree on where the line should be drawn. I don't have a lot of confidence in the neighbor as a safety net idea, because not everyone has a neighbor, both metaphorically and literally speaking.
Sorry, that wasn't what I was suggesting. What I meant was at the time of the depression the government truly was the only entity most could turn to. Since that time many systems have become commone place that take the place of some of SS features such as 401ks, pensions, HSAs, etc. They may require a little more responsibilty and for planning on the part of the people, but that's a good trait to foster in my opinion.
I think that first government must provide for (or make sure that they are provided for) those that cannot provide for themselves, such as children (if their parents do not), the mentally disabled, the mentally unstable, etc.
After that, I think that government should provide for those who would normally help themselves, but for whatever reason, cannot for the moment provide for themselves. Unemployment insurance is what I have in mind here.
I think government, in some circumstances, should provide for those who perhaps had the opportunity to safeguard their futures, but for whatever reason did not. I realize that I just hedged that with "in some circumstances," but it is a tricky subject. If an elderly person loses their pension because they invested poorly, I feel government should make sure that their basic needs are taken care of. I think it is better for society that we not have large numbers of elderly homeless. If a working age person loses their entire investment, then that is too bad, and the government obviously should not cover their loss.
Finally, I think that government should ensure basic opportunity for the entire populace. If this means closing poor schools and shifting students elsewhere, so be it. If it means funneling money into head start programs, I am okay with that. If it means enforcing laws against discrimination, I am okay with that as well. I am also for low interest loans for higher education.
If there are ways to meet these eventualities, while at the same time minimizing the impact by incentivising people to save their money or invest it properly, I am all for that.
Looking above, I can see that I am a big proponent of government, as inefficient as it can sometimes be. But, then again, that is why I am a liberal.
understand and sympathize with the idea that providing a safety net spurs people to rely on it, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
BTW -Entitlements did NOT end the Depression
WWII did
Oh no. I kept it. I am not so much a disinterested actor that I won't keep a tax cut given to me. However, I still don't think that I should be getting these tax cuts.
To salve my conscience, I did give more money to charities that I support this year.