Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Posted on 10/21/2004 8:12:29 AM PDT by independent5
Sure rich guy may buy the corvette to see it smashed - but does government expenditure on a program that is inefficient or serves only to perpetuate even bigger government constitute a wise use of funds to help humanity. This is getting really deep - and i do not mean in terms of intellectually
Of course if the government abuses the program then its bad ... wait, why do so many of you assume that I have no mental functioning abilities whatsoever? I'm not saying that the way the government handles things is good, I'm saying the way the government COULD handle things COULD be good.
Rich guy just paid a lot of money to GM which employs people. Rich guy just helped keep several UAW workers employed. Need to start looking beyond the single cash transaction. The government keeps pouring money into education with less and less improvement. Not a good use of money. (Department of Education was established in 1979, since then the U.S. has had an ever declining educational system. Federal money hurts education, not helps it.)
I don't
then you need to contribute money to the government.
Liberals always call taxes contributions and spending investment. Bye bye
How much if what I own belongs to you? Or the "country"?
By the way, saying that more money = better education really does make you sound like a troll.
Why? Besides, that's not what I said. I did say that money can be well-spent, and that it can be used towards helping education. It doesn't mean that education will be actually helped.
I don't
There isn't a single government service that you want? i.e. Protection (U.S. military)? Legislation? A president? These are all government services. The president needs to get paid if we're going to have one.
Me too, I love to slap these morons around, but JIM hates it, particularly in a election year.
Maybe he had it coming, but he was polite.
Part of the schitck, the last times he was booted didn't work, so he tried this. Some actually bought it.
Wrong! I don't need government intervention to help support charities in my community. If I decide to endow a wing to my local library, I don't need the goverment to help me spend that money because I sure as heck don't need to support the government wanting to take their 2 cents or more out of the amount I want to give.
If I choose to build lower income housing, I don't need a government cottage industry to spring up telling me who should qualify and how they should qualify for lower income housing. I don't need nor would I tolerate all of the red tape the government would throw my way. It would be a waste of my time and my money.
If I choose to build a hospital in my community, I don't need the federal government interfering other than accreditation once the hospital is built.
If I choose to donate my money to local charitable organizations, I don't need the government standing by to grab their percieved part of my money.
If I choose to open a food pantry, offer free classes to legal immigrants, offer free counseling to new home buyers, etc. Why the heck do I need the federal government whose inefficiency and so called fair policies would only add to the cost of what I'm wanting to spend my hard-earned money on.
Most importantly, why should I depend on the government to decide where my money should go? And how it should be spent. Do you not realize how overblown and money-hungry the federal government is?
The thing about Heinz-Kerry's money is, it's hers to do with as she chooses. If she chooses to own 5 homes, numerous cars, designer dresses, yachts and all of the trappings of extrememe wealth, it's still her money to do what she wants with it.
Obviously I want to say that you completely decide where your income goes, but I'm not sure that's practical for society.
To what extent am I responsible for society? Who makes that decision? Who decides what the cut-off is between being rich enough to support the style I want to live in and that I have too much and it should be taken from me.
As far as Heinz-Kerry, how did society support her to accrue the homes she has? She married a rich man, they made investments and they bought the things they bought. Society didn't support her in her purchases. Capitalism did. Should she be giving back? It's her money and it's her decision to give back, not because the government tells her to but because she chooses to.
Very true - if that something involves killing and destruction, the proper functions of a well-oiled State.
Those don't seem like useful talents in schools, for instance, unless you hate children.
Excellent points. And you have made my point -- and that is that things are not always as simple as they seem. That's why I called the rich/corvette thing a "ridiculous" example. There's much more going on than the simple: "I want to smash a car." People have to make that car, people have to be educated to make that car, people have to sell that car, drive that car, etc, etc.
Who do you think you are, John (Wayne) Kerry?
The things you noted were not services, they are part of the responsibility of government.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.
The truly rich spend a small portion of their wealth. Most of it is invested. With the exception of government bonds, that money goes to businesses. Those businesses compete for profits by trying to provide us with better and/or cheaper goods and services. This improves our lives. In their pursuit of profits, jobs are also created.
Taxing the rich assumes that the congress will do a better job for us with the money than corporations. Where is the evidence for that? Beyond defense and a few justifiable expenses, most of the money is spent by congress to enhance the reelection chances of the members.
I am far from rich, but I say "tax cuts for the rich!". I say it because it is the best hope for the poor and middle class.
It isn't money that is hurting the system, it's the policies.
The top 1% of earners pay 33.6 % of ALL taxes. That's not enough for you?
Sally'sConcerns,
Sally, you may be right about everything you just said. I just don't know, that's why I'm open to all of the other options (including yours!). I can't just come right out and say that I think that government isn't ever the best way to get something accomplished. I just don't know that. Maybe our government has always just done it the wrong way? This is something I'm trying to figure out the best I can. Thanks very much for your post.
The top 1% of earners pay 33.6 % of ALL taxes. That's not enough for you?
As I said before, I'd like to see inefficient government programs cut. And I suspect that there are a lot of those.
Contribute to government services? Are you saying we DON'T?? I'm guessing that YOU don't "contribute." You most likely live at home with Mommy and indulge in government giveaways. I pay FAR MORE to the government than the "services" I receive.
Yup Slim, it is a troll.
Would it be possible to keep Independent5 around for awhile. I know there are quite a few who are calling for his zot but I'd like to get to know him a bit better before I call him troll.
He reminds me of my cousin who's voted democrat all of his life but came over yesterday and surprised the heck out of me by telling me he's voting Bush. I think there might be hope for this one yet even though I don't agree with all of his positions. He's only recently out of college and if we can explain our positions in an honest manner, he might yet come around.
Please give him the benefit of the doubt...unless he happens to be a re-tread.
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
