So, what I wanna know:

[Duke]

Do you really think Dem’s are FOR higher taxes?

If repubs are for lower taxes, that means less money for the government.

Do you think about what we must do without in order to have lower taxes?

Is it welfare?
Do you think that everybody on welfore could be working if they just wanted to?
Do you think there are enough jobs to hire everybody? Even handicapped people?

Is it science and space exploration?
Do you think that government spending on science (less than 1% of the federal budget) does not contribute to our excellent standard of living?

Is it foreign aid (less than 1% of the federal budget)?
Most foreign aid goes to Israel. Is this well spent money?
Is the little bit we spend in Africa well spent? Don’t we want them to be trading partners someday?

Is it education (3% of the federal budget)?
Do we want all 50 states to have different standards, and no federal help for poor states/districts?

Are taxes not really the issue? If not, what is?

 

[vraiblonde]

Do you really think Dem’s are FOR higher taxes?

Well, yeah. That's the way they vote and what they say on the talking head shows. Hell, KKT made it almost her whole campaign. That and race-baiting.

Do you think that everybody on welfore could be working if they just wanted to? Do you think there are enough jobs to hire everybody? Even handicapped people?

Yes. Yes. Most.

Taxes are an issue but, to me, the biggest issue is personal freedom. For example, in the former People's Republic of Maryland (former because we have a new Governor ) they ignore national crime statistics in order to ban guns.

The other big issue to me is the Democrats' soft on crime attitude. Everyone's a victim and deserving of compassion (except for the person who actually died or was raped).

Democrats always want the government to control everything and I find it very Big Brother-ish and at odds with the very things that make us Americans.

 

[Larry Gude]

OK, Duke,

Of course they are but that is beside the point.

It’s not that dems are for higher taxes per se, it's a fairness issue.

Reagan got rid of asinine tax rates (like 80%) just as JFK had done a generation before (the highest then was something like 90%) and both Presidents policies INCREASED revenue to the treasury by sparking the economy by LOWERING taxes. A small piece of a growing pie is always better than a large piece of a stagnant one.

So, your second sentence is incorrect. Republicans like to spend money to.

Your third is a matter of how to overcome people’s misperceptions of how the economy works.

Next, no one can deny that "welfare" as we know it becomes a suffocating, dismal way of life. Clinton had the courage to sign welfare reform, welfare roles went down, more revenue came to the treasury via income and payroll taxes and, viola, fewer slaves to the system because the system improved limits. In short, lives improved by raising expectations.

Next, increasing science, space and I'd add military spending is a great way for government to promote the general welfare through creating opportunity for the private sector to create great jobs, thus creating more overall income for the treasury as above.

Israel gets about 1/3 of total US foreign aid or so, not "most" in my book. Certainly that is fair game for debate but who else, among our allies, can justify it?

Of all you listed, however, certainly foreign aid is the one that accrues no financial gain to US.

So, taxes, per se (sorry, I like writing that! makes me sound smart if nothing else) ain't the issue. It's about "how" to go about getting to much money for our government to spend.

Oops. Almost forgot. Education. This is one that makes me howl. The federal government provides little more than 3-9% of a given states education budget AFTER taking the money from the citizens of the state. Certainly the military is to big, as is space programs, interstate highway systems and even foreign aid, for a state to handle on its own, but the three R’s???

This is a question of whether or not we the people want the elementary, middle and high schools that are 2 ½ miles from my house, run from Washington DC.

Why would we want that? If the people of Washington DC and New Jersey want to spend more than anyone else per pupil on education and have the worst results in this nation, who are we to interfere? I say that because the flip side of that coin is I sure as hell don’t want them having ANY say in my schools.

So, let’s call it not so much “how much” in terms of taxes but simply “how”.

How’s that?

 

[MGKrebs]

Larry

Great reply. Thanks.
To be honest, I’m not really here to argue the liberal point of view, but to try to understand why people think the repub agenda is better. But I guess I have to engage by asking for contrast to the lib side, since I DO NOT understand the conservative game plan.

So, Taxes: I don’t think anybody wants higher taxes just for the hell of it. It’s just that dem’s want the things that tax money brings. We think the science expenditures, health, education, and welfare make us a better society. Many of these things are not "profitable" and therefore are not going to attract free markets solutions.
Am I right in thinking that repubs just assume that private companies will take care of these things? Or that they are a waste?
Welfare - Isn’t there a certain number of people who are just not going to be competitive no matter what? Handicapped, stupid, whatever. What to do with them? How many are there? Mothers whose husbands get killed or go to jail- they need help or else what, we let them starve?
Science- I agree with you here. Is this a common repub sentiment?
foreign aid- I suspect you said the magic words here- "financial gain". Am I exaggerating to suggest that repubs are always about the bottom line? Money? We spent money in Japan after WWII, and now they are a huge trading partner. Can we not expect the same thing from Africa someday?
Education- See, after you say how little education money the feds control, you go on to say they run your local school! I think most of that money is "redistributed" to poor districts for construction, and maybe computers and supplies, since they can’t raise it themselves. I am guessing you think we should let each district, or perhaps state, just fend for themselves. Maybe that would work. But it’s the same principle as why companies like to be bigger- they can re-allocate resources depending on need.

On edit: Hey! somebody reset my ID! Cool. Thanks!

 

[Larry Gude]

krebs,

Thanks.

OK, what I mean on education is not that they feds DO control my local school but that at some point they WILL if the goal is to spend more and more "federal" dollars on education.

Next...Hmmm. I'll have to re-hash some of what I've already written to enunciate the "rebup" agenda.

So, Taxes: I don’t think anybody wants higher taxes just for the hell of it.

It's not " how much" taxes, it's "how".

Libs/dems seem to think that the more you earn, the higher percentage of what you earn should go to the government. It is manifestly insane to me to say that 10% or 30% for all, whatever the number is, is somehow not fair. You make $10,000 you pay $1,000. You make $1 mil. You pay $100,000. Progressive tax rates are straight out of Marx: From each my his means, to each by his needs.

I buy a burger, you buy a burger. You don't have to pay more than me because you have a better job.

Dems can want to spend all the money in the world. The fact remains that tax policies that are more fair lead directly to more $'s to spend. I find the lib stance on this mad as well except I understand the power of class warfare.

We think the science expenditures; health, education, and welfare make us a better society. Many of these things are not "profitable" and therefore are not going to attract free markets solutions.

Science I'm all for. Human cloning is mad science.

Health? I'll fix it tomorrow. It is now illegal for anyone to have someone else pay for your health insurance. You want it? You pay for it.

Overnight there will be companies offering policies way cheaper and with better service than what your company pays for now.

Why? Because the direct consumer is empowered, not some disinterested 3rd party.

It is insane for families that go to the dentist a few times, the doctors for the flu or a few fevers, throw in a broken arm and maybe some stitches to have policies that cost their employer $12,000 a year.

They'd never pay for it if it came from their pocket.

BUT IT DOES! It's just like withholding taxes, out of sight, out of mind. Who cares?

The LAST thing I want is some corporation paying for it. Make that second to last. Government, then corporations. Why in the name of (insert favorite slogan here) do we not simply have the individual spend the money first hand?

School? Same thing. My district spends over $7,000 per kid (times our 3) per year for school. If I had it, in my hand, you think I'd be a bit more interested in what goes on at school when check-writing time comes? As it is, you just accept it as a "public" education. How good can you expect it to be, right?

PS: You gotta (must, have to) break your paragraphs to make it more readable.

Welfare. Should there or should there not be expectations placed on people who need help? The only reason public help gets a bad name is because the systems get abused enough for the bad name to be based on fact and mean old republicans aren't allowed to tell people they have to change their lifestyles.

By pointing out Japan, then you certainly understand the possibilities for Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Korea. Wanna show some potential in Africa? Somalia maybe?

There is NOTHING to build on. I'm open to suggestions but money ain't one of them without hardcore structural changes.

The ONLY issues I see in our nation that is a matter of 180 disagreement is abortion, capital punishment and the 2nd amendment and there is not nor will there ever likely be, enough energy on this side to do much more than address partial birth abortion, so, that leaves two.

All the rest is a matter of degree and it's crazy to think the GOP is going to be disciplined enough or tough enough to settle all these issues strictly our way.

One can hope.

 

[MGKrebs]

New! Easy reading paragraph breaks!

I'm with you on the education point. So the question is, is there SOME level of federal involvement that is acceptable and appropriate? It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and it is TINY right now, so why are people coming down on the "nothing" side right now?

In principle, I agree with you on the progressive taxes, too. The problem is, let's say we go to a flat tax. Suddenly, instead of 11% of the population living in poverty, we'll have 20-something %, since their tax rate will have to jump way up to cover for the reduction from the top end. And what about homestead exemptions? Do they go away to? Won't wealthy people just load up on real estate?

So isn't the idea of a flat tax, or even a less progressive one, a little simplistic?

I assume that the progressive tax was implemented because the government needed a certain amount of money to operate, and they couldn't get any more out of the poor. Voila.

By the way, wealthy people get all kinds of discounts that the poor don't get; quantity discounts, low interest with good credit, tax exempted or deferred investments, etc. So we DON'T all pay the same.

Tax policy- you said " tax policies that are more fair lead directly to more $ to spend". I agree with this, IF the money goes back to less than wealthy people. Is someone who already makes $600,000 a year going to spend more because they get a thousand bucks back? Whereas the rest of us will spend our $300 rebate immediately.

"Tax cuts" always sound good, but are we (Americans) thinking through the implications? Or am I still missing something?

Health care- Your idea flies in the face of history. In any case, dems want some kind of system that can cover everyone, BECAUSE it should be cheaper in the long run than treating people who are seriously ill because they didn't go to a doctor because they didn't have insurance. I like the principle , but have no idea how to implement it, and minimize waste and fraud. I can see how this can scare repubs.

Schools- I have no kids. Would you think I should be eligible to not pay the portion of my property taxes that go to schools?

Welfare- I don't think anybody has a problem with expectations for recipients. Not at all. The "bad name", I think, comes from the media constantly pointing out the (hopefully minimal) problems. I think the welfare system runs pretty well, BECAUSE there is so much scrutiny.

I think the real problem is that we can't seem to define how many people really need help, and how many are cheating or scamming. But repubs seem to want to basically have NO welfare, and then we'll just arrest all the homeless people, and build more prisons. ??

 

[Ken King]

MGKrebs,

Welcome back.

Do you really think Dem’s are FOR higher taxes?

No, of course not. They just want to put into place programs to right all of the worlds wrongs and that costs money so then they have to raise taxes.

If repubs are for lower taxes, that means less money for the government.

No, it means that if they only spend for those things that are necessary for the common defense or the general welfare, and not special interests, the government wouldn’t need as much money if spending was controlled a little better. We all are aware of pork spending and it does nothing but cost us money. A lot can be cut here.

Do you think about what we must do without in order to have lower taxes?

Sure and some things we won’t have to do without if we cut identified waste and duplication.

Is it welfare?
Do you think that everybody on welfore could be working if they just wanted to?
Do you think there are enough jobs to hire everybody? Even handicapped people?

Well that is one area that has recently received some overhauling and it could use even more. There will always be some that can’t do anything for themselves and truly need help. Not laziness but actual impediment to being productive is what I’m talking about here.

Is it science and space exploration?
Do you think that government spending on science (less than 1% of the federal budget) does not contribute to our excellent standard of living?

Is all science worthy of federal funding? Nope, I have seen grants for the flow rates of ketchup and other ridiculous items. We could be more frugal here too. It also depends on which Executive Departments fall into a science role. I would say that besides NASA, you would have to include Agriculture, Energy, EPA, and portions of HHS. The budgets of these this year comes to about $123 billion.

Is it foreign aid (less than 1% of the federal budget)?
Most foreign aid goes to Israel. Is this well spent money?
Is the little bit we spend in Africa well spent? Don’t we want them to be trading partners someday?

Good point? Why not take care of our own before we go out taking care of anyone else. How can we be sending over $3 billion in weapons to Israel and we have homeless folk here? Couldn’t that money be used better?

Is it education (3% of the federal budget)?
Do we want all 50 states to have different standards, and no federal help for poor states/districts?

Are we gaining anything by making all schools the same and giving the same education to everyone? If there are standards then keep it to Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Let the remainder of the education be shaped by the localities that deal with the kids and know what they need. We could trim some of this budget by doing a direct grant program that wouldn’t require all the infrastructure that manages a $47 billion budget.

There is probably a good 10% to 20% of shear waste and duplication within the government that could be trimmed right a way. Not to mention all the pork spending. That would still leave enough for what we need to do, not necessarily what we want to do, and provide for a serious tax break or total restructuring of the tax system, like a consumption tax.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Ken King


Is all science worthy of federal funding? Nope, I have seen grants for the flow rates of ketchup and other ridiculous items. We could be more frugal here too. It also depends on which Executive Departments fall into a science role. I would say that besides NASA, you would have to include Agriculture, Energy, EPA, and portions of HHS. The budgets of these this year comes to about $123 billion.

yea, I always loved the little on going joke about how NASA went to space and found out their pens did not work. So they spent years and billions of dollars developing a pen that could write in space.. In the mean time, the Russians just used pencils..

 

[Bruzilla]

Do you really think Dem’s are FOR higher taxes? YES

If repubs are for lower taxes, that means less money for the government. YES

Do you think about what we must do without in order to have lower taxes? Not really. By doing away with a lot of government fat (like the Dept. of Education) we could reduce taxes without sacrificing vital services.

Is it welfare?
Do you think that everybody on welfore could be working if they just wanted to? NO
Do you think there are enough jobs to hire everybody? Even handicapped people? Yes!!! They may not be great jobs but they're better than giving people money for nothing. In Singapore they have welfare recipients out sweeping and mopping the sidewalks eight hours a day.

Is it science and space exploration?
Do you think that government spending on science (less than 1% of the federal budget) does not contribute to our excellent standard of living? Most of this type of work is funded by private corporations, which is how it should be. That prevents special interest groups from deciding what should be developed and what shouldn't.

Is it foreign aid (less than 1% of the federal budget)?
Most foreign aid goes to Israel. Is this well spent money? The Israelis saved our collective butts hundreds of times during the Cold War... what have all these other deadbeat countries done?

Is the little bit we spend in Africa well spent? Don’t we want them to be trading partners someday? No and no. Most of our aid dollars are spent on trying to feed people who wish to live in areas where there is no food, or to cure diseases that they know about and do little to prevent their infection.

Is it education (3% of the federal budget)?
Do we want all 50 states to have different standards, and no federal help for poor states/districts? Are all 50 states the same, and have the same education requirements? No. So why do we try to force them to be the same? Also, why do we pay about 30 percent of each education dollar to the DOE so that they can do studies and employ "experts" who generate reports for state DOEs who already know what their issues are?

Are taxes not really the issue? If not, what is? It's not taxes.... it's what we do with the money.

 

[MGKrebs]

Hi Ken. Good to see you.

By the way, how do you insert those quotes in your posts? That's cool.

So it sounds to me like you guys are saying it's all about money. (Aside from abortion and gun control.)

Less welfare, less foreign aid, less waste, less science, equals more money for each of us. You either think that the fed's can't do anything right, or we don't need most of what they do. Or both. In other words, the federal government should only concern itself with the bare minimum of services necessary to provide defense, and MAYBE a few other services like food inspectors. So even though we live in the richest, most advanced country ever on the planet, we are not interested in pooling a small percentage of our funds to help those who are less fortunate (both here and abroad), advance science, or invest in the future.

Are we to think that private enterprise is the answer? Corporations are not subject to fraud, waste, greed?
How much money do you think eliminating these programs you don't like will save you?

What are the criteria for determining that the repubs are doing what you want?
Less welfare spending?
Less foreign aid spending?
Bigger tax cuts?
Eliminate the DOE?

What if they do those, but it results in:

Higher unemployment
More homeless
More widespread diseases
Egypt overwhelmed with starving refugees
The budget deficit blows up so that any growth in the economy is offset by higher debt payments..
Or, the tax cuts go to the wealthy, who don't spend it because they don't need to, so it doesn't help the economy.
States raise sales taxes a bunch to offset the loss of federal money.

Would you still consider the agenda a success because they have reduced taxes and the size of the federal government, in principle?