What do you want from government?

[DiamondDave]

I want the government to leave me more than 50% of my income to do with as I see fit.
I think you need a new tax accountant.

I want the government to go on a ******* diet and operate within a prescribed budget of no more than 30% of GDP.

I want the government to stop enacting "good for us" legislation

......

I think you are forgetting the other little taxes we pay other than income tax and SS

 

[Foxfyre]

We got off track on Ravi's thread objecting to Obama being compared to Hitler, but there seemed to be some interest in the new topic, so I'm moving it here.

One of the comparisons was in tactics used by government to accomplish whatever goals the leadership might want to achieve. But whether such tactics are proper, appropriate, or inappropriate is often in our perspectives of what we think government should be, and what we do and do not want government to do for us or to us.

The question under discussion was this but does not necessarily have to be limited to this:

From your perspective, what IS the appropriate role of government in taking over and running private commerce and industry at any level or in any circumstances? What limits would you place on government's ability to tell you where you can and cannot work, what you are or are not allowed to earn, what kind of healthcare you are required to have, what sort of union you must belong to?

And add to that, from your perspective, what is the appropriate role of government in telling you how much you must or cannot save, how much interest you can or cannot earn, what you can and cannot invest or speculate in, what risks you are or are not allowed to take?

It would be helpful if Federal and State government distinctions would be made if you in fact think there are distinctions between Federal and State government.

Your quoted portions seem to presume that the government already dictates where you can work, earn, save, invest or risk. And that's simply not true. If this is about healthcare, then talk about that, not generalize by lumping other assumptions into that one issue.

There are in fact already areas of government in which many of us see government as overreaching, intrusive, or inappropriate; and this is an extension of comments from the other thread that the government seems intent on increasing its ability to overreach, intrude, and/or govern aspects of our lives that some see as inappropriate for government to do.

So yes, we can use specifics like healthcare as illustrations, but I would like to focus on the core principles of what government should and should not do. Should government provide healthcare for every man, woman, and child living in America? You might say yes. I say no, that should not be a function of government. It should, however, be a function of government to clear unnecessary roadblocks and facilitate or encourage the ability of the private sector to provide affordable healthcare insurance to all who want it. There are many of us who see it as an intrusion on our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom for government to REQUIRE us to have healthcare insurance if we do not want it, and also for government to REQUIRE us to pay for other people's healthcare insurance and/or other people's healthcare if they do not get healthcare insurance.

That is based on a basic principle that government oversteps its Constitutional authority any time it confiscates my property to use for the benefit of another individual or individuals. You might see it as splitting hairs, but I see goverment charity as something entirely different from the social contract in which everybody shares and shares alike for the mutual benefit of all.

I believe the federal government needs to get involved in regulating (or at least establishing guidelines for) any major component that affects ALL of our lives. That would include energy, education, defense, and yes, our health (because if we are a sick society, nothing else matters anyway).

But then some of those broad categories would need to be broken down of course. For example, I don't think the government should demand that your child attend school, but when a child does enter the school system, s/he shouldn't be subjected to a myriad of different curriculum which are based solely on the character of a region. Therefore, the government should design GUIDELINES for basic education, and mandate that those be included in all state education programs.

Let's separate out defense from this discussion as that is a Constitutionally mandated requirement for the federal government to provide.

But on the other issues you used as examples--energy, education, health--where do you draw the line on how much control the federal government should have over the healthcare system? If total control, how does that not remove all our freedom regarding our own healthcare? At what point has government overstepped its authority? And once you give the government authority over any healthcare now administered privately, what stops government from expanding that authority until it becomes inappropriate? Who gets to determine what is and is not appropriate?

If the federal government can dictate ANY guidelines re what must be included in education, what prevents it from dictating what must not be included, and when does that extrapolate into the federal government having control over what our kids will and will not be taught? When will home schooling be outlawed to ensure that the children are being taught all the 'right' things and none of the 'wrong' things? Who gets to determine that? And if the parents and school boards and PTAs lose their power over what children can and cannot be taught, how does that not become perilous to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

It all comes down to how much control over our individual lives we are willing to allow government to have and how much we trust the government to have our best interests in mind.

Is that enough to start a conversation? Sorry I can't participate further today, and I look forward to many comments to read tomorrow.

It is a very good start, yes. And touches on many of the concepts and principles that I think are useful to discuss.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the answer is that a government must evolve with the needs of a society. There are some functions that the government does better and there are some that private industry does better. There is also a need for Government oversight of private industry.
Prior to the 1960s, private industry could do whatever it wanted in terms of the environment. Waste products were just dumped into rivers and lakes. If you didn't have a river you just dumped it into the ground. You burned what you liked and put it into the air. The results were the poisoning of many people in surrounding communities as well as a destruction of our water system. Even though industries complained that the government was forcing them out of business, we needed government to step in and protect us.

In my view, unalienable rights are those that require no participation by another individual but require only his/her non interference. Therefore, respect for my unalienable rights assumes that I can do anything I like on or with my property so long as that does not interfere with anybody else's unalienable, legal, civil, or constitutional rights. I have no right to disturb your sleep with my noisy party, but so long as it does not interfere with you, you have no right to tell me what kind of party I can have on my own property.

I have no problem with the federal, state, or local governments setting and enforcing policy that prohibits anybody from forcing me to participate in their activities against my will. I should not have to breathe toxic fumes nor should I have to endure somebody else's toxic emissions or waste polluting my vegetation, ground, water, etc. or eroding my property values. On the other hand, a community who depends on a certain noisy, smelly, or ugly industry for their jobs and livelihood should be allowed to have that so long as it doesn't affect the next community, etc. Another example is wood smoke. Should all people be denied use of their fireplaces because a few don't like them?

There are always gray areas in the works, devils in the details, etc. but there are certain basic principles that apply.

Okay out and about for now. Back later.

 

[MaggieMae]

I want the government to leave me more than 50% of my income to do with as I see fit.
I think you need a new tax accountant.

I want the government to go on a ******* diet and operate within a prescribed budget of no more than 30% of GDP.

I want the government to stop enacting "good for us" legislation

......

Add it up maggs.

it's not solely income tax as I believe you are assuming.

Add up every tax you pay and you will find that the average American pays more in taxes than they do for housing, food and clothing combined.

I don't, and never did. Where I live there is no tax on food. The property tax is probably minimally accounted for in rentals, but that is nominal. So unless you purchase big ticket items every year and own a home, at least here, there's no way in hell taxes add up to 50% or more of earnings.

 

[MaggieMae]

I want government to make me healthy. I want government to make me as rich as the next guy. I want government to look on my choices as favorably as any other choices. I want government to make sure noone makes too much money. I want government to look out for people, not businesses (which really have nothing to do with the people I want government to look out for), I want government to play nice so others will like us.....

Newsflash: If "others [don't] like us, we become sitting ducks, or have you forgotten 911 already? We now live globally, like it or not, and cannot isolate ourselves anymore, dictating our way of life for other nations to emulate, picking and choosing our enemies based on specific events (friend of Saddam in the 80's; enemy of Saddam in the 90's et seq.)

Cannot isolate ourselves anymore ? Is it OK for us to have buildings that people from other countries don't knock down ?

Huh?

 

[MaggieMae]

I want them all to resign so we can start all over again.

Yes, and this time hire some grownups.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28o3yUvuQSA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Maddie[/ame]

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Newsflash: If "others [don't] like us, we become sitting ducks, or have you forgotten 911 already? We now live globally, like it or not, and cannot isolate ourselves anymore, dictating our way of life for other nations to emulate, picking and choosing our enemies based on specific events (friend of Saddam in the 80's; enemy of Saddam in the 90's et seq.)

Cannot isolate ourselves anymore ? Is it OK for us to have buildings that people from other countries don't knock down ?

Huh?

We do not need other countries to like us. Warm, fuzzy feelings are not important in International affairs. Respect is.

 

[MaggieMae]

......

Add it up maggs.

it's solely income tax as I believe you are assuming.

Add up every tax you pay and you will find that the average American pays more in taxes than they do for housing, food and clothing combined.

I made a thread about all the taxes the average person pays, but it might have been on a different message board.

Skull is right, Maggie.
When you start adding up all the miscellaneous other taxes (aside from income taxes) that you pay it probably is close to 50% for the average household.
Some of those taxes/fees are built right into the purchase price of things, so many people don't even realize it. (Think gasoline, alcoholic beverages and tobacco for prime examples)
Then there are those almost unnoticeable taxes that get added to your everyday living expenses, take a good look at your phone bill, or next time you buy tires for your car, take a good look at that, there is a federal excise tax on tires.
One of my favorites in my local area is the "Impervious Storm Water Tax". If you own property, they tax you on the square footage of the land that is unable to absorb rain---the house, the driveway, a concrete patio, etc. Yes, they are now taxing me for rain.

So how would you (anyone else?) propose that state governments operate? By donations when you feel like it? Usually taxes in individual categories serve a purpose for survival of that classification, not just because a state legislature feels like adding a frivolous tax. Also, almost all the taxes you define are deductible on your federal 1040.

Tax Topics - Topic 503 Deductible Taxes

 

[MaggieMae]

So you don't want any laws involving speed limits or which side of the road to drive on? Would you allow commerce and industry to be able to pollute the air, soil, water without restriction? Is there no room for the intent to promote the general welfare in such matters?

But while I think most Americans (including you) are probably in full agreement on those kinds of things, the others listed in the thread starter are a bit more complicated.

Speed limits...Local issue. On open interstates highways; none for non-commercial traffic and enforce lane usage, i.e. the Autobahn.

Pollution of the air and soil is a quasi-aggressive act....Especially given that the land pollution would likely run off onto another's property.

I agree that government, as much as possible, should have ability to prohibit pollution that can extend beyond one's private property. But when such pollution is pretty much a local matter, should that be an issue for the federal government? Or local government? Or both? I do want my right to not have my air, soil, and water polluted by others protected, but where do you draw the line on that? If my neighbor is allergic to or dislikes wood smoke, should I not be allowed to have a fire in my fireplace on a winter night?

And if the majority of us do want speed limits in school zones, on public streets, to protect construction workers, or simply to keep it safer on the highways, should not government accommodate such social contract?

You mean you can't? I don't know what each state's laws or each town's regulations might be on burning, but where I live, there are wood stoves and fireplaces all over the place. But if you want to burn leaves, you need a "burn permit" from the Fire Department (for obvious reasons). Also, we outlawed "burning" trash in incinerators decades ago when everyone was doing it (before solid waste pickup began) because of the carcinogens in the air.

I guess I'm missing the point here. OF COURSE there should be rules/regulations/laws on some things that have an effect on neighboring populations and none if they don't. It's the way it is now, and I don't foresee this doomsday scenario where such laws will ever be in place that will restrict your "freedom" do do whatever you want on your property within those laws.

 

[rightwinger]

Cannot isolate ourselves anymore ? Is it OK for us to have buildings that people from other countries don't knock down ?

Huh?

We do not need other countries to like us. Warm, fuzzy feelings are not important in International affairs. Respect is.

They do not have to like us, but it helps.
Any country has to deal with the people it represents. If the US is hated by the people, they will not stand for concessions or compromises with the US.
If the people respect the US and consider them a friend they will come down on their government in our favor.

Respect is also important. George Bush was not respected or trusted. hat is why he had such difficulty forming alliances

 

[California Girl]

Dude nailed it.

NO way. The preamble to the Constitution tells us in 52 words that the nation's reason for being can be reduced to six principles:

Society
Justice
Peace
Security
Commonwealth
Freedom

I want a government that abides by our Constitution and nothing else. Everything else is states issues.

I want a SCOTUS who applied the law in accordance with the Constitution and does not lean left or right.

I'd like our politicians to write bills in plain English, read them before they sign them, and attach nothing to any bill to slide crap through that should not go through.

I'd like to expand treason to cover desception of 'we, the people'.

I'd like all our politicians to be honest and work for the common good of 'we, the people'.

I'd like the only special interest group to be 'we, the people'.

 

[California Girl]

Dude nailed it.

NO way. The preamble to the Constitution tells us in 52 words that the nation's reason for being can be reduced to six principles:

Society
Justice
Peace
Security
Commonwealth
Freedom

I want a government that abides by our Constitution and nothing else. Everything else is states issues.

I want a SCOTUS who applied the law in accordance with the Constitution and does not lean left or right.

I'd like our politicians to write bills in plain English, read them before they sign them, and attach nothing to any bill to slide crap through that should not go through.

I'd like to expand treason to cover desception of 'we, the people'.

I'd like all our politicians to be honest and work for the common good of 'we, the people'.

I'd like the only special interest group to be 'we, the people'.

 

[California Girl]

Dude nailed it.

NO way. The preamble to the Constitution tells us in 52 words that the nation's reason for being can be reduced to six principles:

Society
Justice
Peace
Security
Commonwealth
Freedom

I want a government that abides by our Constitution and nothing else. Everything else is states issues.

I want a SCOTUS who applied the law in accordance with the Constitution and does not lean left or right.

I'd like our politicians to write bills in plain English, read them before they sign them, and attach nothing to any bill to slide crap through that should not go through.

I'd like to expand treason to cover desception of 'we, the people'.

I'd like all our politicians to be honest and work for the common good of 'we, the people'.

I'd like the only special interest group to be 'we, the people'.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Huh?

We do not need other countries to like us. Warm, fuzzy feelings are not important in International affairs. Respect is.

They do not have to like us, but it helps.
Any country has to deal with the people it represents. If the US is hated by the people, they will not stand for concessions or compromises with the US.
If the people respect the US and consider them a friend they will come down on their government in our favor.

Respect is also important. George Bush was not respected or trusted. hat is why he had such difficulty forming alliances

The "cant we all just get along" approach to international politics.........

 

[alan1]

......

Add it up maggs.

it's not solely income tax as I believe you are assuming.

Add up every tax you pay and you will find that the average American pays more in taxes than they do for housing, food and clothing combined.

I don't, and never did. Where I live there is no tax on food. The property tax is probably minimally accounted for in rentals, but that is nominal. So unless you purchase big ticket items every year and own a home, at least here, there's no way in hell taxes add up to 50% or more of earnings.

You don't think the landlord builds the cost of his property taxes into the rent payment? Indirectly, the renter is paying that tax.
If you own a car, you are paying hidden taxes/fees, registration, property tax, gasoline tax, something. Maybe you use public transportation, as far as I am aware of, every public transit system is supported through a tax of some sort, usually a sales tax.

You might want to investigate a little more.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/94197-i-work-for-the-government.html

 

[MaggieMae]

We got off track on Ravi's thread objecting to Obama being compared to Hitler, but there seemed to be some interest in the new topic, so I'm moving it here.

One of the comparisons was in tactics used by government to accomplish whatever goals the leadership might want to achieve. But whether such tactics are proper, appropriate, or inappropriate is often in our perspectives of what we think government should be, and what we do and do not want government to do for us or to us.

The question under discussion was this but does not necessarily have to be limited to this:



It would be helpful if Federal and State government distinctions would be made if you in fact think there are distinctions between Federal and State government.

Your quoted portions seem to presume that the government already dictates where you can work, earn, save, invest or risk. And that's simply not true. If this is about healthcare, then talk about that, not generalize by lumping other assumptions into that one issue.

There are in fact already areas of government in which many of us see government as overreaching, intrusive, or inappropriate; and this is an extension of comments from the other thread that the government seems intent on increasing its ability to overreach, intrude, and/or govern aspects of our lives that some see as inappropriate for government to do.

So yes, we can use specifics like healthcare as illustrations, but I would like to focus on the core principles of what government should and should not do. Should government provide healthcare for every man, woman, and child living in America? You might say yes. I say no, that should not be a function of government. It should, however, be a function of government to clear unnecessary roadblocks and facilitate or encourage the ability of the private sector to provide affordable healthcare insurance to all who want it. There are many of us who see it as an intrusion on our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom for government to REQUIRE us to have healthcare insurance if we do not want it, and also for government to REQUIRE us to pay for other people's healthcare insurance and/or other people's healthcare if they do not get healthcare insurance.

That is based on a basic principle that government oversteps its Constitutional authority any time it confiscates my property to use for the benefit of another individual or individuals. You might see it as splitting hairs, but I see goverment charity as something entirely different from the social contract in which everybody shares and shares alike for the mutual benefit of all.

I believe the federal government needs to get involved in regulating (or at least establishing guidelines for) any major component that affects ALL of our lives. That would include energy, education, defense, and yes, our health (because if we are a sick society, nothing else matters anyway).

But then some of those broad categories would need to be broken down of course. For example, I don't think the government should demand that your child attend school, but when a child does enter the school system, s/he shouldn't be subjected to a myriad of different curriculum which are based solely on the character of a region. Therefore, the government should design GUIDELINES for basic education, and mandate that those be included in all state education programs.

Let's separate out defense from this discussion as that is a Constitutionally mandated requirement for the federal government to provide.

But on the other issues you used as examples--energy, education, health--where do you draw the line on how much control the federal government should have over the healthcare system? If total control, how does that not remove all our freedom regarding our own healthcare? At what point has government overstepped its authority? And once you give the government authority over any healthcare now administered privately, what stops government from expanding that authority until it becomes inappropriate? Who gets to determine what is and is not appropriate?

If the federal government can dictate ANY guidelines re what must be included in education, what prevents it from dictating what must not be included, and when does that extrapolate into the federal government having control over what our kids will and will not be taught? When will home schooling be outlawed to ensure that the children are being taught all the 'right' things and none of the 'wrong' things? Who gets to determine that? And if the parents and school boards and PTAs lose their power over what children can and cannot be taught, how does that not become perilous to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

It all comes down to how much control over our individual lives we are willing to allow government to have and how much we trust the government to have our best interests in mind.

Is that enough to start a conversation? Sorry I can't participate further today, and I look forward to many comments to read tomorrow.

It is a very good start, yes. And touches on many of the concepts and principles that I think are useful to discuss.

Once more, you are assuming worst case scenarios. The ol' what if mindset so typical of the right. If it was the intent of the left to just take over all aspects of our lives, the health care bill, for instance, would be just one page long, stating just that. Actually, even mandated "defense" is a series of laws expanding on the Constitution's requirement, depending on how "defense" is needed based on real-time situations.

 

[Claudette]

I want the government to leave me more than 50% of my income to do with as I see fit.

I want the government to go on a ******* diet and operate within a prescribed budget of no more than 30% of GDP.

I want the government to stop enacting "good for us" legislation

Skull Pilot, you got my vote. You wanna run for Prez????

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Your quoted portions seem to presume that the government already dictates where you can work, earn, save, invest or risk. And that's simply not true. If this is about healthcare, then talk about that, not generalize by lumping other assumptions into that one issue.

There are in fact already areas of government in which many of us see government as overreaching, intrusive, or inappropriate; and this is an extension of comments from the other thread that the government seems intent on increasing its ability to overreach, intrude, and/or govern aspects of our lives that some see as inappropriate for government to do.

So yes, we can use specifics like healthcare as illustrations, but I would like to focus on the core principles of what government should and should not do. Should government provide healthcare for every man, woman, and child living in America? You might say yes. I say no, that should not be a function of government. It should, however, be a function of government to clear unnecessary roadblocks and facilitate or encourage the ability of the private sector to provide affordable healthcare insurance to all who want it. There are many of us who see it as an intrusion on our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom for government to REQUIRE us to have healthcare insurance if we do not want it, and also for government to REQUIRE us to pay for other people's healthcare insurance and/or other people's healthcare if they do not get healthcare insurance.

That is based on a basic principle that government oversteps its Constitutional authority any time it confiscates my property to use for the benefit of another individual or individuals. You might see it as splitting hairs, but I see goverment charity as something entirely different from the social contract in which everybody shares and shares alike for the mutual benefit of all.



Let's separate out defense from this discussion as that is a Constitutionally mandated requirement for the federal government to provide.

But on the other issues you used as examples--energy, education, health--where do you draw the line on how much control the federal government should have over the healthcare system? If total control, how does that not remove all our freedom regarding our own healthcare? At what point has government overstepped its authority? And once you give the government authority over any healthcare now administered privately, what stops government from expanding that authority until it becomes inappropriate? Who gets to determine what is and is not appropriate?

If the federal government can dictate ANY guidelines re what must be included in education, what prevents it from dictating what must not be included, and when does that extrapolate into the federal government having control over what our kids will and will not be taught? When will home schooling be outlawed to ensure that the children are being taught all the 'right' things and none of the 'wrong' things? Who gets to determine that? And if the parents and school boards and PTAs lose their power over what children can and cannot be taught, how does that not become perilous to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

It all comes down to how much control over our individual lives we are willing to allow government to have and how much we trust the government to have our best interests in mind.

Is that enough to start a conversation? Sorry I can't participate further today, and I look forward to many comments to read tomorrow.

It is a very good start, yes. And touches on many of the concepts and principles that I think are useful to discuss.

Once more, you are assuming worst case scenarios. The ol' what if mindset so typical of the right. If it was the intent of the left to just take over all aspects of our lives, the health care bill, for instance, would be just one page long, stating just that. Actually, even mandated "defense" is a series of laws expanding on the Constitution's requirement, depending on how "defense" is needed based on real-time situations.

Wow- what a stupid statement. In reality- if the intent of the left in transforming one sixth of our economy was to take over many aspects of our lives, they would hide it in 1900 pages of gobbledygook.

 

[MaggieMae]

Cannot isolate ourselves anymore ? Is it OK for us to have buildings that people from other countries don't knock down ?

Huh?

We do not need other countries to like us. Warm, fuzzy feelings are not important in International affairs. Respect is.

Sorry, but other countries have a direct bearing on our own well being anymore, in the financial world, the environment, trade, technology, you name it. The U.S. is no longer numero uno in many of these areas, particularly education. We import scientists and engineers because it costs our own children (and their parents) a small fortune to send them to college to learn the same talents that foreigners learn for nothing. The world's economy nearly collapsed because of the failure of American financial institutions that had a ripple effect on global credit and trade. We are hated by certain radical people in the Mideast and Southeast Asia because of our military presence in those areas. How would people in this country react if China had a huge military base located somewhere in the Midwest? Do some homework. The only way to make sure another world war doesn't break out is if we cooperate with one another and at least assure detente among those nations we perceive as enemies and who perceive us as enemies as well.

 

[alan1]

Add it up maggs.

it's solely income tax as I believe you are assuming.

Add up every tax you pay and you will find that the average American pays more in taxes than they do for housing, food and clothing combined.

I made a thread about all the taxes the average person pays, but it might have been on a different message board.

Skull is right, Maggie.
When you start adding up all the miscellaneous other taxes (aside from income taxes) that you pay it probably is close to 50% for the average household.
Some of those taxes/fees are built right into the purchase price of things, so many people don't even realize it. (Think gasoline, alcoholic beverages and tobacco for prime examples)
Then there are those almost unnoticeable taxes that get added to your everyday living expenses, take a good look at your phone bill, or next time you buy tires for your car, take a good look at that, there is a federal excise tax on tires.
One of my favorites in my local area is the "Impervious Storm Water Tax". If you own property, they tax you on the square footage of the land that is unable to absorb rain---the house, the driveway, a concrete patio, etc. Yes, they are now taxing me for rain.

So how would you (anyone else?) propose that state governments operate? By donations when you feel like it? Usually taxes in individual categories serve a purpose for survival of that classification, not just because a state legislature feels like adding a frivolous tax. Also, almost all the taxes you define are deductible on your federal 1040.

Tax Topics - Topic 503 Deductible Taxes

I believe some taxes are needed. The level of taxation that our government has risen to is disgusting.

They may be deductible against my income, they are not a one-for-one write off on federal taxes. Look at it this way, if I pay $100 in property tax on an automobile, it doesn't reduce my federal tax by $100, it reduces my taxable income by $100.