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.
"Less government" is codespeak for "I'm cheap and don't want to pay taxes". I don't feel like there's a heavy handed government weighing me down so I'm not worried about it. If you think your vision of the world is going to pass dream on. Even when the Repubs have been in power, there's been no govt. shrinkage. Nice philosophical exercise, but that's all it is.
"Less government" is codespeak for "I'm cheap and don't want to pay taxes".
I don't mind paying taxes at all, they are necessary for many things. For example national defense comes to mind. It's when someone is taking my hard earned money and giving it to someone else that I have the issue whether it's a subsidy for some multi-million dollar corporation or the dirt ball that is too lazy to get off his ass and make a living for himself . If I want to be charitable with the money I have earned that should be my own decision. If I want to give the family that is having trouble paying their heating bills credit that I know I may never see again which is something I have done on more than one occasion that's my decision.
I don't mind paying taxes at all, they are necessary for many things. For example national defense comes to mind. It's when someone is taking my hard earned money and giving it to someone else that I have the issue whether it's a subsidy for some multi-million dollar corporation or the dirt ball that is too lazy to get off his ass and make a living for himself . If I want to be charitable with the money I have earned that should be my own decision. If I want to give the family that is having trouble paying their heating bills credit that I know I may never see again which is something I have done on more than one occasion that's my decision.
Get real. Discretionary spending (welfare, foreign aid, etc.) makes up the equivalent of the pennies you round on your tax return. Here are the four main areas your federal taxes go to:
1. Interest on the debt.
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Defense
So which of those things would you like to cut?
You've just revealed the real basis of this philosophy: you don't want to pay for other people, especially ones who aren't like you. Unfortunately for you, that's a very tiny part of what government does so reducing it would have almost no effect on your personal situation. I think you're being disingenous in saying "I don't mind paying taxes". Sure you do.
Get real. Discretionary spending (welfare, foreign aid, etc.) makes up the equivalent of the pennies you round on your tax return. Here are the four main areas your federal taxes go to:
Those of us in business know those pennies add up to a lot of money but I wouldn't expect someone who likes to spend other peoples money to understand that. Cutting out the wasteful spending is where you start.
Since only two of them would be applicable in this context I'll address them.
Quote:
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
These should be self sustaining without any additional federal dollars subsidizing them, you should have a choice to opt out of it and take it on as your own responsibility. If you choose to do that and you're broke when you're 65 tough ****. It's not necessarily about cutting anything but instead putting the power back into hands of people to make their own decisions.
Even when the Repubs have been in power, there's been no govt. shrinkage. Nice philosophical exercise, but that's all it is.
Amen to that....
The translation is that "Big Government should only exist to rob the nation's coffers for things WE want to spend the money on!!!"...
The next Republican Administration that shows financial responsibility will be the first. (And this is NOT to say that the Dems are any better in the spending department, so settle down righties... )
the mere fact that they discussed our liberties in relation to government means that it doesn't fit the definition of anarchy. in your overeagerness to point out "absolute liberty," you seem to have missed the "social state in which there is no governing person or group of people."
there are those of us out there that think that the government is too big. wanting a smaller government is not even remotely the same as wanting no government.
and, ironic to the way that this argument generally boils down to an assumption about right wing nuts and bomb shelters, there are those among both the conservative and liberal ideologies that want a smaller government.
you don't need audio for this video; it is merely a weird soundtrack. but watch it again and you will see that there is a clear guideline as to what a government's position should be, even if it doesn't fit your vision of what you want or tolerate.
then go back and reread the wiki article a little more thoroughly, and you will quickly get the idea that anarchy is not the same as limited government.
however, i'll warn you that this exercise will require a little intellectual honesty from both of those on the right and on the left, and i frankly doubt that too many of those that have become religiously adherent to either one of the parties will be able to make sense of anything that doesn't toe their party line.
Its fine if you want to show this video to a class of 6th graders, but high school students as well as adults need to realize that unfortunately there is not this blind idealism out in the real world. Corporate beauracracy can wreck the lives of others and restrict freedon just as easily as government. It also doesn't take into account the idea that you can manipulate the actions of others and deceive them.
For example, the exchange segment, it says "two people who exchange property are better off otherwise they wouldn't do it" look at all of the useless crap people waste their money on, that they don't need, and they would be better off saving the money, excess clothes, silly late night gadgets from TV, etc. People are made to believe how much better off they would be with something than without it due to advertising and subtle manipulation.
The video is naive and elementary at best and should be considered right wing propaganda.
If you would like utopia to be like this, fine, but this is the real world.
The same goes for Ayn Rand's philosophy. Naive and childish at best and it is just a tool of justification for the greedy and powerful to exploit anyone weaker than themselves in a subtle manner.
I don't mind paying taxes at all, they are necessary for many things. For example national defense comes to mind. It's when someone is taking my hard earned money and giving it to someone else that I have the issue whether it's a subsidy for some multi-million dollar corporation or the dirt ball that is too lazy to get off his ass and make a living for himself . If I want to be charitable with the money I have earned that should be my own decision. If I want to give the family that is having trouble paying their heating bills credit that I know I may never see again which is something I have done on more than one occasion that's my decision.
Really "coalman"? How do you feel about government subsidies to the coal industry?
If the subsidies for coal were dropped the industry wouldn't bat an eye, it's very little per megawatt generated. I think they should all be dropped across the board for all industries. Industries should sink or swim on their own merits. Subsidies lead to political corruption and ultimately harm industry more than they help. Having said that if you want to understand the page you linked too this would be better source as it puts it into context, for example in 2007 coal received about $0.44 per megawatt while wind and solar are approaching $25.00...
In other words the average home in the US uses about 1 megawatt per month, if they get their electric just from coal and the subsidy is dropped their bill goes up less than 50 cents. That's really not accurate either as lions share for coal subsidies goes to R&D. If they are getting it from wind their bill goes up $25. That's only federal subsidies, renewable resources also receive substantial subsidies at the state and local level.
Believe me, if there were no taxes you wouldn't have any more money. The price of labor, goods, and services are based on the net return to the provider. Taxes are passed through as a cost of doing business.
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.
:
)
