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.
This isn't an argument about whether or not those programs are good or bad. I'm not trying to argue about whether or not the stimulus was good or bad. This post was intended to say that Michelle Bachmann is a hypocrite, or that she is unprincipled. But I simply do not agree.
For instance, I don't like the public school system, and would much rather a privatized system with vouchers. So does it mean I'm a hypocrite if I am sending my kids to public school? Lets say that I am against the "Earned income tax credit", but I qualify for it. Am I a hypocrite if I apply for and receive the credit each year? If I am working a full-time job but am only making a little over minimum wage, and so I qualify for and receive Food stamps(maybe $30 a month). Am I a hypocrite? I don't believe so on any account.
The thing is, the government takes your money through a variety of means. Even if you are paying absolutely nothing in income tax, you are still dishing out money in payroll taxes and in corporate taxes(indirectly of course), as well as many other taxes. The government takes that money and hands it out for a variety of reasons and programs.
In a very real way, if you are eligible for $30 in food stamps a month and you are too proud to go get them. Then you are voluntarily paying in an additional $360 a year in taxes. Lets pretend you bought a house last year and were eligible for the $8,000 new buyer tax credit, but you were opposed to the program. Why wouldn't you still apply for the credit? It works the same way with medical bills and your college education. You would be a fool to not utilize a program in which you have basically already paid for.
Keep in mind, the minimum wage itself is really a "living wage". This living wage already factors in all subsidies and benefits that people receive. And all other wages are generally related to the minimum wage(which is why all other wages go up when minimum wage goes up). So the reality is that, the existence of these welfare programs means people at the bottom tend to get paid less than they would if these welfare programs didn't exist. Which means to a large degree, anyone who is working and who is also eligible for government benefits, is really already paying for their benefits. If they are not receiving them, then they are voluntarily taking a pay cut.
The same thing can be said for Bachmann and Minnesota. The people in Minnesota are already going to be paying for the stimulus either in higher taxes or through the inflation of the dollar(which is the equivalent of being taxed). So if Bachmann is refusing any of the federal stimulus plan, then what she is really doing is voluntarily paying higher taxes to the federal government, but receiving nothing in return.
So while Bachmann is against the stimulus, she knows it is going to be handed out regardless. And she would rather as much of the money that Minnesotans either already have paid, or will pay, to be returned to Minnesota. Which makes perfectly logical sense.
I mean, look at it like this. Lets pretend your housing addition decided to start a HOA, which would charge every house in the neighborhood $100 a month. That money would pay for them to come paint your house and fix your roof, and other cosmetic work on your house whenever it needed to be done. But lets pretend that it took away your right to choose what color to paint your house, or what shingles to put on your roof, etc. So you disagreed with the HOA, but were outvoted, and so now you are paying $100 a month for something you disagreed with. Would you be a hypocrite if you went ahead and allowed them to work on the exterior of your house instead of paying for it yourself? I don't think so, you are just getting what you already paid for. And you can continue to oppose what you see as an invasion of your freedom, and a confiscation of your money, without being a hypocrite.
In reality, this whole conversation is just political theater bullcrap. In this situation, "the left" wants to paint anyone who receives anything from the government as a hypocrite, if they speak up against government spending. In another situation, you'll have "the right" calling the anti-war folks out because "the internet we are on was created by the military". Or some other bull****. This is a stupid argument, and I'm tired of seeing it.
You're tired of seeing this argument because it is true, and the house of cards comes tumbling down. So Minnesota can't make it w/o government help; why the hell is Michelle trying to dismantle the government then? Does she want a lower quality of life for her constituents, once she gets her way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
We now have an article from HuffPo and one from Crooks and Liars. Do you know what the original purpose of C&R was. I see they are still one of the left leaning blogs that I speak about all the time.
You're tired of seeing this argument because it is true, and the house of cards comes tumbling down. So Minnesota can't make it w/o government help; why the hell is Michelle trying to dismantle the government then? Does she want a lower quality of life for her constituents, once she gets her way?
It isn't a matter of Minnesota making it without government support. Take for instance the "Bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. Sarah Palin promoted the bridge, not because it was absolutely necessary, but largely because it would have brought in federal dollars into Alaska. It is the job of every elected official to bring in more and more of those federal dollars. That's why you have such an uproar when it comes to base closings, because communities are destroyed when that federal money stops coming in.
This is Sarah Palin trying to clarify this basic position.
Does her going to Congress to ask for federal money mean that Alaska "can't make it without government help?". No, Alaska is doing just fine. It does mean that we have a system of government that confiscates the wealth from the states, which in turn forces the states to try to bring as much of that money back home. And sadly this is usually through the elected representatives asking for the funding, or by throwing in earmarks into bills.
The way to fix this would be something like an "enumerated powers act", or by limiting all Congressional bills to a single subject which must be stated in the title of the act. Otherwise, you would need an amendment to clarify and limit the constitution, but that is highly unlikely.
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.
