Is it time to invoke "the beer drinker's parable" again!
it is a flawed argument and doesn't really exist in the real world as government (like it or not) is essential for america as a whole to be as successful as it is, there are many small countries with less taxes, less government intervention but they have not flourished.
It is appallingly unfair because the rich are the ones who benefit the most from government. How do they benefit more? In almost every way. On the most basic level the government creates and enforces the laws that protect their property. The government invests in the nations infrastructure for things such as national defense, public education, transportation, energy. Without this infrastructure in place *and maintained*, the rich would not have been able to become rich, or be able to maintain it. I read too many comments from people who think that the rich made their money in a vacuum. The welfare of their workers, and the welfare of their society depend on these taxes.
We're not talking about putting the rich into the poor house. We're talking about 4.3% (no slippery slope arguments here please.) With the rich disproportionately benefiting from what government and society in general are providing, it only makes sense that a progressive tax system is proportional and fair. You can argue all day long that our government is wasteful, and needs reform. On those arguments I'll likely be right beside you (depending of course on what you're considering wasteful). However, you can not ignore the functions that government, and taxes do provide.
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
However, in our more advanced societies our government has developed alternative strategies that are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's performance.
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
And of course...
13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.
I keep hearing that quote above about "how the rich benefit more from government" and I still don't understand how those are not things that we all benefit from. I believe that if you look at entitlements it is cut and dry who benefits more from government.
I keep hearing that quote above about "how the rich benefit more from government" and I still don't understand how those are not things that we all benefit from. I believe that if you look at entitlements it is cut and dry who benefits more from government.
it is not cut and dry, but yes it does require some critical thinking, consider if every business had absolutely nothing provided by the government, no infrastructure/ no regulation so businesses had to provide all that and police themselves and the cost of business would go up tremendously as the risks of doing business skyrocket with no protections, no government to maintain energy sources making a much more volatile economy making it hard to maintain a stable environment. no subsidies or defense contracting, no pollution prevention methods...etc
while yes we all benefit all those things are very expensive, you cannot run a developed country of our size on a shoestring budget, it is just not possible such as why we need the rich to be taxed at more then a miserly 28%, the lower incomes are "subsidized" with lower FEDERAL taxes so that they can get by as a basic level of living costs money.
it's not that hard of a concept that a stable government isn't free
it is not cut and dry, but yes it does require some critical thinking, consider if every business had absolutely nothing provided by the government, no infrastructure/ no regulation so businesses had to provide all that and police themselves and the cost of business would go up tremendously as the risks of doing business skyrocket with no protections, no government to maintain energy sources making a much more volatile economy making it hard to maintain a stable environment. no subsidies or defense contracting, no pollution prevention methods...etc
while yes we all benefit all those things are very expensive, you cannot run a developed country of our size on a shoestring budget, it is just not possible such as why we need the rich to be taxed at more then a miserly 28%, the lower incomes are "subsidized" with lower FEDERAL taxes so that they can get by as a basic level of living costs money.
it's not that hard of a concept that a stable government isn't free
I never said cut all spending. That is impossible while maintaining any infrastructure.
And again, all those things "provided to businesses" by the government benefit all others as well. I just believe that it is misrepresenting who benefits from what when someone talks about how the "rich" benefit more than anyone else.... It just isn't true.
I still believe that our government wastes SOOO much money all over the place it is ridiculous.
Cornell University scientists have received
$296,385 in stimulus funds to study “dog
domestication.” Researchers believe that
there is common understanding of where dogs
descended from, but the progression from there
to Lassie “is poorly understood.” They point
out that much of the research “has focused on
breed dogs, but the diverse populations of semiferal
‘village’ dogs are likely an important key
for understanding dog domestication.”
Researchers at
Wake Forest University have received nearly $300,000 to
study whether Integral Yoga “can be an effective method to
reduce the frequency and/or severity of hot flashes” in
menopausal women.
Museum With 44 Annual Visitors Gets Funding for Bug Storage (Raleigh, NC) -$253,123
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) spent $350,000 to hire “experts” to help people hook up digital converter boxes made necessary by the federal government’s recent digital switch.
A Georgia Tech assistant professor of music will receive $762,372 to study improvised music. The
project will apparently involve the professor jamming with “world-renowned musicians” to “hopefully also create satisfying works of art.”
Scientist Attempts to Create Joke Machine (Evanston, IL) – $712,883
Researchers at Northwestern University are using stimulus money to
develop “machine-generated humor.”
People around Boynton, Oklahoma were left scratching their heads after the town was awarded nearly $90,000 to replace a quarter-mile stretch of sidewalk that was replaced only five years ago.
The California Academy of Sciences is receiving nearly $2 million to
send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east
Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants.
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte received more than $750,000 in stimulus funds to help
develop a computerized choreography program that its creators believe could lead to a YouTube-like
Dance Tube” online application.
Despite having no plans to reopen a shuttered visitor center at Mount St. Helens in Washington state,
the U.S. Forest Service is spending more than $554,000 to replace its windows.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) subsidized a study attempting to find out if a gay man’s penis size has any correlation with his sexual health.
EPA grants have upgraded 55 Mexican trucks and many more will be enhanced this year. Each truck costs U.S. taxpayers about $1,600. The feds justify the expenditure by claiming that it will improve air quality on both sides of the border, especially in towns that are helpless due to lack of resources.
Instead of taxing more, let's do away with:
.................
The list goes on and on....
sure there are many wasteful projects like that, but what about the things that the republicans support? oil company subsidies (the most profiable companies in america need subsidies!!!!!!), or the funding of abstinence only education????
the stuff you listed is peanuts compared to the oil subsidies which were estimated about 4 billion a year
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep
I never said cut all spending. That is impossible while maintaining any infrastructure.
And again, all those things "provided to businesses" by the government benefit all others as well. I just believe that it is misrepresenting who benefits from what when someone talks about how the "rich" benefit more than anyone else.... It just isn't true.
I still believe that our government wastes SOOO much money all over the place it is ridiculous.
trickle down doesn't work, the last 60 years has proven that
sure there are many wasteful projects like that, but what about the things that the republicans support? oil company subsidies (the most profiable companies in america need subsidies!!!!!!), or the funding of abstinence only education????
the stuff you listed is peanuts compared to the oil subsidies which were estimated about 4 billion a year
trickle down doesn't work, the last 60 years has proven that
Two wrongs don't make a right, every spending program should be investigated with a "show cause" attitude (all the wasted peanuts need to be a part of the mix rather than ignored). Remember it was a crooked "two party" system that got us into this mess and Obama hasn't helped us.
Two wrongs don't make a right, every spending program should be investigated with a "show cause" attitude (all the wasted peanuts need to be a part of the mix rather than ignored). Remember it was a crooked "two party" system that got us into this mess and Obama hasn't helped us.
Obama has tried, but the party of "no" has stopped just about every attempt, the republicans have had their way on everything except obamacare, how can you possibly in any way shape or form think Obama is at fault? (other then not being willing to drop down to the republicans actions and fight dirty, he certainly tried to play nice for far too long and the republicans walked all over him.
Obama has tried, but the party of "no" has stopped just about every attempt, the republicans have had their way on everything except obamacare, how can you possibly in any way shape or form think Obama is at fault? (other then not being willing to drop down to the republicans actions and fight dirty, he certainly tried to play nice for far too long and the republicans walked all over him.
Let's see, how long did Obama have a democratic congress at his disposal? And isn't that when he did his reckless porkulous spending claiming he was saving the economy?
Linear Mode
