Why do you want more government & taxes? (Ron Paul, Representatives, unemployment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those of you out there that want more government and the related taxes/expenses that go with it, please explain why so that I may understand. Why do you want MORE government (especially federal) in your lives in this era of already overbloated, overreaching, overcostly government? Why then more and higher taxes out of your earnings to pay for this government and why more laws and regulations that go hand in hand with larger, more powerful government?
That's just talk radio rhetoric in line with the right wing social control scheme demanding lower classes not to be able of collective action of any kind. A wage unit must be ruggedly alone and isolated, it must be on the mercy of the corporate bosses and owners of means. What's government? Theoretically, democratic government is an acknowledgement and a tool of our collective will. Under capitalism, democratic government is the only safeguard against corporate/owning elites utilizing their power over the dispossessed masses to its fullest. That's why prepaid talk radio clowns dislike democratic government so much. Why? Because it's democratic (in theory) and plebians have a small chance to affect its policies. Wage slaving masses have no say over the policies of the private tyrannies (corporations). Owning class loves government that serves their needs (they must have big government to maximize ROI, there are no big corporations without big governments backing them) but they don't want plebians to affect government policies in any way (that would be "mob rule", if you vote for the corporate frontmen and their "ideas" it's called democracy by the propagandists).
Power is the ultimate prize of the petty human squabbles under the stars. It's just too bad that psychopaths that customarily reach the top of the human pecking order want absolute power, they don't want plebians to affect their decisions in any way, be it through unions, local ordinances or through democratically elected governments. USA is notorious for overthrowing foreign democratically elected governments that had audacity to govern on the behalf of their people (and not the behalf of the foreign and American corporate interests). That's what happens when corporations/owning class privatize governments and its repressive/military apparatus and run election circus to legitimate the power grab.
To paraphrase your question, "Should we have more of our averaged "collective will" or should we have more of "elite" deciding for us?). Yes, corporations/owing class privatized government and things steadily go downhill because of that. Yet, I don't understand blue color talk radio listeners treating government as a foreign, intrusive entity (and waving that flag each time to show how "free" they are). Democratic government is the only your chance to affect the course and protect your interests.
Even more amazing when ruggedly individualistic agents run to a court to sue their neighbors for poor lawn maintenance affecting their property values. You embraced right wing ideology of isolation, zero cooperation and hyper-individualism, and guess what? Literally millions of laws and regulations must accompany your ideology, big law, big police, big incarceration and big government must come together with your ideology to make it happen. It's not lefty envirowackoes that demand lions share of all those silly laws and ordinances, it's famous middle class. Isolated, having no real communities, tradition, status anxious rat racers demand more government agencies and laws to settle issues (that used to take a small talk to settle) and to further isolate them from undesirable aspects of their social environment. I grew up in USSR (as my written language suggests), I tell you that it never ever come 1% close to the levels of codification (public and private, written and silent) of everyday existence you have over here (yup, you are the freest). There are so many laws governing pretty much every your step and action, Lenin or Stalin couldn't imagine that these levels of control are possible. How can you have millions of laws to govern atomized society without big government to enforce those laws?
Those are written laws. In order for you to sell your arse and get fed, you must follow zillions of corporate policies and unwritten rules of thumb facilitating your employment chances. Yes, you can speak freely, but in 99% you wouldn't dare if it has a slightest chance to affect your employment/business. Unemployment is a wage of noncompliance here, you can speak whatever you want (it's not like a KGB agent could prevent you from speaking). The state effectively outsourced enforcement of uniformity to the corporations wielding a sword of poverty, low social status and destitution. And what fine enforcers they are. Uniformity (including uniform personalities) and double speak, double/triple ... personalities and general sense of everything and everybody being fake. If that makes you feel better modern Russia (or any post soviet country) is not much better in this regard. That's the rules of the game that have no borders.
Last edited by RememberMee; 01-06-2013 at 11:09 AM..
For those of you out there that want more government and the related taxes/expenses that go with it, please explain why so that I may understand. Why do you want MORE government (especially federal) in your lives in this era of already overbloated, overreaching, overcostly government? Why then more and higher taxes out of your earnings to pay for this government and why more laws and regulations that go hand in hand with larger, more powerful government?
That's an empty question. You have ill-defined means of overbloated, overreaching, overcostly, "bigger," etc, government.
We all want "more government." We just disagree where.
Thats why wealth gravitates towards the wealthiest. The government must walk a fine line of ensuring the opportunity of its citizens. This is the goal of a good government and it is VERY HARD to achieve. Too many taxes discourages entreprenuership and too few lend to the wealthiest becoming wealthier at the expense of the general populace. Too few social welfare programs lead to structural poverty (where upward movement for the poor is very difficult) and too many lead to a lazy populace who do not work (at least efficiently) at the expense of those who do. Governments that lean too far in either direction are bound to fail. Look at 18th century France or the USSR for examples of either extreme.
That's an empty question. You have ill-defined means of overbloated, overreaching, overcostly, "bigger," etc, government.
We all want "more government." We just disagree where.
No we don't. I want less government in every aspect, do you know the definition of government? Apparently not, so I will help you.
A government is that group of people with the authority to govern a country or a political state
Ok, with that out of the way back to the OP. I think what you mean is why people would vote for more government because they increase taxes and cost us more.
Those two things don't impact the same voters. People who vote for more government do so because they get something in return for doing nothing. (Medicaid, welfare, WIC, EBT cards, utility subsidization, etc, etc)
This block of voters has no remorse in increasing taxes upon those who earn money by working or investment and believe that their failing in life whether by their own hand or some/thing else is the fault of perfect strangers.
So the people who fund these programs are obviously not able to harness any of the gifts they provide to others because that would defeat the purpose of the system and it would be impossible to fund, which among other reasons is the simple fact that most taxpayers (not to be confused with voters) don't want to expand government.
Those who receive the gifts from taxpayers realize that this is far easier than providing for yourself, having less things in life and struggling on your own. When the politicians make this a fight between providers and non-providers you naturally have a war between the two in the ballot booth, but since we slowly have a devolving society with no ethics or morals the takers will ultimately rule and runover the givers.
Taking money from people who earn it is never OK. It's simply because now the stigma of stealing from one person to give to another is no longer a bad thing, it's championed and disgusting. There was a time when being poor and not helping yourself was frowned on, when divorce was a last resort and ultimately frowned on, when being classy and helping people was done voluntarily but those days are long gone and you now have a binary equation. Takers vs non-volunteering givers. I think you know who is going to win.
How about if YOU identify the people you are describing there?
I don't have to. They know who they are. Some are identifying themselves in their response. Thank you
That's just talk radio rhetoric in line with the right wing social control scheme demanding lower classes not to be able of collective action of any kind.
No, it's a simple question. Actually several questions. I don't require college lesson on economics RememberMee so let's not make the answer more complicated than it has to be. Do you remember the question? Thank You Thank you for your history lesson ukrkoz.
We all want "more government."
I disagree Konraden and obviously so do others. BUT I thank you for your reply.
I think what you mean is why people would vote for more government because they increase taxes and cost us more.
Yes partially and why wouldn't someone not want to reduce the size and scope of government? Thank You
No we don't. I want less government in every aspect, do you know the definition of government? Apparently not, so I will help you.
A government is that group of people with the authority to govern a country or a political state
Should towns have a public safety division, I.E., police and fire?
Quote:
Ok, with that out of the way back to the OP. I think what you mean is why people would vote for more government because they increase taxes and cost us more.
Those two things don't impact the same voters. People who vote for more government do so because they get something in return for doing nothing. (Medicaid, welfare, WIC, EBT cards, utility subsidization, etc, etc)
This block of voters has no remorse in increasing taxes upon those who earn money by working or investment and believe that their failing in life whether by their own hand or some/thing else is the fault of perfect strangers.
So the people who fund these programs are obviously not able to harness any of the gifts they provide to others because that would defeat the purpose of the system and it would be impossible to fund, which among other reasons is the simple fact that most taxpayers (not to be confused with voters) don't want to expand government.
Those who receive the gifts from taxpayers realize that this is far easier than providing for yourself, having less things in life and struggling on your own. When the politicians make this a fight between providers and non-providers you naturally have a war between the two in the ballot booth, but since we slowly have a devolving society with no ethics or morals the takers will ultimately rule and runover the givers.
Taking money from people who earn it is never OK. It's simply because now the stigma of stealing from one person to give to another is no longer a bad thing, it's championed and disgusting. There was a time when being poor and not helping yourself was frowned on, when divorce was a last resort and ultimately frowned on, when being classy and helping people was done voluntarily but those days are long gone and you now have a binary equation. Takers vs non-volunteering givers. I think you know who is going to win.
This is you basically ranting that anyone who wants 'more government' (as empty a statement a that is) does so because they're lazy, amoral, and irresponsible.
Surely you can't be this obtuse. Perhaps those millions of voters and taxpayers who disagree with you do so because a governance operating in the public good, despite cost to them, benefits society as a whole? That would make them hardworking, moral, responsible voters and tax payers, precisely the opposite of what you state they are, by virtue of recognizing that their hard work goes to moral assistance of people who otherwise can't help themselves--a citizens responsible duty to his or her society which supports them.
Should towns have a public safety division, I.E., police and fire?
This is you basically ranting that anyone who wants 'more government' (as empty a statement a that is) does so because they're lazy, amoral, and irresponsible.
Surely you can't be this obtuse. Perhaps those millions of voters and taxpayers who disagree with you do so because a governance operating in the public good, despite cost to them, benefits society as a whole? That would make them hardworking, moral, responsible voters and tax payers, precisely the opposite of what you state they are, by virtue of recognizing that their hard work goes to moral assistance of people who otherwise can't help themselves--a citizens responsible duty to his or her society which supports them.
It is amoral to tax people. It is simply stealing, and while some level of it necessary you limit the amount of it the absolute minimum. (Military and a couple very specific roles)
Moral assistance is done voluntarily, and I can assure you without even knowing you that you don't contribute all you can with money or time to charity work, so who are you to tell anyone to give something?
When you take from a family/taxpayer you are sucking money directly out of their family which would have been used to setup their children or selves for a better future. (Housing, education, childrens, etc)
For anyone to try and justify taxing people beyond the most barest of minimums, especially against their will is absolutely ridiculous and shows how corrupt your thinking is.
I can tell you right now, the benefits granted to the US Society are at an all time high and it is more despicable than ever. Look at the urban trash that aimlessly roams around and uses EBT cards, welfare and section 8 housing as a bedrock of life with no shame, and no desire to move forward.
If I had it my way I would allow a very small income tax allocation for military and local police/fire, highway maintenance and that's is pretty much it.
I would also directly donate to people in my community if I felt it was necessary to help them out if I thought it would make a difference, but I wouldn't have one issue with people starving because they are too stupid or helpless to save themselves. The propping up and prioritizing the weakest and biggest drags on society is backwards to every animal that exists in this world and promotes continued bastardization and devolution of this world and our country.
It is amoral to tax people. It is simply stealing, and while some level of it necessary you limit the amount of it the absolute minimum. (Military and a couple very specific roles)
On this we will never agree. One fallacy in your reasoning is that you treat government like it is some alien presence that was imposed upon us by some foreign power. On the contrary, your government at virtually every level, is elected by you and your neighbors. If you want to blame someone for "guvamint" than go look in a mirror or go shake your neighbor's hands. I don't know where you get the idea that taxation is "amoral". Without taxation you wouldn't have police protection, fire protection, a national defense, or public schools. You say keep taxation to a "minimum". I say let the people decide through elected representatives what level of both taxation and spending is appropriate.
Finally, what gives you the right to define "moral" or "amoral"? I have a right to my definition. You have a right to yours. The public's definition of what is "moral" ultimately controls though since we decide policy by voting in elections.
Quote:
Moral assistance is done voluntarily, and I can assure you without even knowing you that you don't contribute all you can with money or time to charity work, so who are you to tell anyone to give something?
Wrong. If its entirely voluntary, than there is no guarantee that what is provided will bear any approximation to the actual needs that exist in a community. I'll grant you that "human wants" can be pretty overwhelming at times. Some limitations need to be put on them. However, again this is best done by having the people decide as a whole what we want to do for disadvantaged groups in the community and than budget money to do so.
Quote:
When you take from a family/taxpayer you are sucking money directly out of their family which would have been used to setup their children or selves for a better future. (Housing, education, childrens, etc)
When you make the decision to live in a society, you are required to give up some of your own freedom. You have to obey laws passed by the legally elected councils and legislatures in that community. Some of those laws pertain to taxation. Your recourse is to vote those politicians out of office if you disagree with a tax or any other law they pass. The family that you describe gains by having an effective police force, good schools to educate their children, a fire department, a military that can protect them from international threats. It also gains by seeing that the poorest members of the community have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. Such actions inevitably reduce crime and keep these people from trying to break into homes and businesses. When the elderly in your society know they can count on at least some minimum amount of money when they retire (social security) it creates a more peaceful and secure society. Finally, virtually all those tax dollars that are collected are returned to the community when government purchases goods and services that it needs to operate.
If America is too tough a place for you to live than you can always consider immigration to a foreign country. Perhaps, an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with few people on it would be more to your liking? If not, you can stay. However, we have a few rules we expect you to follow.
Quote:
For anyone to try and justify taxing people beyond the most barest of minimums, especially against their will is absolutely ridiculous and shows how corrupt your thinking is.
Not really, it shows your misunderstanding of our system and the way it works. If you are so all "fired up" about the evils of taxation than you need to do more to elect candidates to public office who think the way you do. Judging from the fact that Ron Paul didn't do very well in this last presidential election it looks to me like most people don't share your views. That's the fly in your ointment. Educate them. Change them. Preaching here on CDF isn't going to change much.
Quote:
I can tell you right now, the benefits granted to the US Society are at an all time high and it is more despicable than ever. Look at the urban trash that aimlessly roams around and uses EBT cards, welfare and section 8 housing as a bedrock of life with no shame, and no desire to move forward.
Some people will abuse any system that is created. Its not unique to government. Long before this country handed out public assistance to the needy, President Hoover complained about hobos who went through free food lines more than one time at "bread lines" run by non-profit organizations. It concerns me though the way you describe people who are "down and out" as trash. It takes far less to be impoverished than many people believe it does. Many people are just a pay check or two from losing a home or apartment. An illness, a layoff, or family problems can result in a reversal of fortunes for many in the middle class. The distribution of wealth in this country preponderates more and more in the direction of the wealthy. What you propose will make that problem worse--not better.
Quote:
If I had it my way I would allow a very small income tax allocation for military and local police/fire, highway maintenance and that's is pretty much it.
YOU don't get your way. Get it??? We decide these needs and outcomes by majority rule. Now you can whine and moan all you want about that takes away your "freedom". The problem, simply stated, is that long ago, you got out voted. During the last presidential election, people who think the way you do got outvoted again. Come see me when you win an election and than maybe we'll have something to talk about.
Quote:
I would also directly donate to people in my community if I felt it was necessary to help them out if I thought it would make a difference, but I wouldn't have one issue with people starving because they are too stupid or helpless to save themselves. The propping up and prioritizing the weakest and biggest drags on society is backwards to every animal that exists in this world and promotes continued bastardization and devolution of this world and our country.
Private charity doesn't cut it when it comes to solving social problems because there is no control over (1) how much is contributed; and (2) where it goes. Private charity may result in dozens of people contributing their time to be docents at classical music concerts or doing animal rescue work. Its never going to be satisfactory for dealing with the needs poor children have for medical care. Yet, by large margins the taxpayers have shown during elections they want to fund programs that give poor children medical care.
If you got the world you think you want, you wouldn't want it. You'd have epidemic disease because you don't believe in funding public health through taxes. You'd have millions of poor in the street who would have to be controlled through the most violent of methods because they'd be trying to break into homes and businesses to steal the means to survive. You'd make me and my neighbors surround our homes with barbed wire and hire security guards because that's what we would need to have any sense of security in this brutal, Hobbesian world you'd create. Currently, I don't feel I need to keep a gun in my home for security. In your world, I suspect that would be different. If I ran a business, I might have trouble hiring young people because with the public schools gone there'd be fewer of them who could read or write or who had the most basic skills. I'd have to take time off of work caring for my elderly parents (perhaps move them into my home) because they couldn't afford to live on their own without social security. You'd give government no means to deal with a recession, or depression because it would be unable to increase spending when these inevitable business cycles strike.
Thanks, but no thanks. I want no part of your world, sir.
(Another person who probably spends all their time reading bad Ayn Rand novels instead of learning American History and reading accurate articles about current events.)
Last edited by markg91359; 01-09-2013 at 07:12 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
