Applying Today’s Nutty Republican Logic To Taxes
There’s talk in Republican circles these days about the need to save money by cutting funding for food stamps. One in seven Americans, and by some estimates am even greater percentage of children, now depend on these stamps to supplement their diets. But (and here we come to present day Republican logic) some people who don’t really need this help may be getting it. So, this thinking runs, cut overall funding for the program.
And then there’s the same logic applied to unemployment insurance. Some recipients of extended benefits, present day Republicans postulate, really don’t want to work. They prefer staying at home and collecting unemployment benefits instead, even though these benefits are far less than they could earn of they were working at the kind of jobs that generated the benefits in the first place.
And then there’s also the same logic expounded by Republicans when it comes to voting. Their theory here is that some people (i.e. poor and elderly ones who would probably vote Democratic) don’t really qualify to vote. So they impose proof rules that have the real world have the effect of disenfranchising a lot of the poor and elderly.
Does the utter absurdity, callousness and indeed the cruelty of this logic bother me? Not any more. Because I realize that all we need do to solve some of this country’s biggest fiscal problems is to apply this same logic on the tax front.
Why don’t Republicans want to tax the rich? Because, they say, these people are “jobs creators.” Except most probably aren’t, And a number are actually and demonstrably job destroyers. But those facts aside (facts don’t matter with Republican present day logic) some rich are not jobs creators.
So if some rich are not jobs creators, then all rich people should be taxed more. That’s the Republican logic with food stamps, voting, unemployment insurance. Surely it should be applied on the tax front as well.
More from (and about) this writer at http://cootavengers.com/
32 Responses to “Applying Today’s Nutty Republican Logic To Taxes”
If what you’re trying to say is that we should concentrate on real, instead of assumed, needs and behaviors, then I’d agree.
That is what you’re saying, isn’t it?
Well all I can say is the writer addressed non of the questions.
Is there money available to cut from food stamps? Well I would say since that program is run by the states it’s their issue. They may or may not be able to handle reduced funding. On the States side I definitely think there is some room for savings in fraud reduction and management and perhaps on what food qualifies. There may also be something to be done with who gets what. My neighbor has 4 children. When she had food stamps (she has since quit the program) the amount provided totaled about 3 times what she currently spends on groceries. Now she is a very frugal shopper and has good access to good stores. I wouldn’t be surprised to see food cost here were lower than elsewhere. It does however lead me to believe there may be a possibility of sliming the program without anyone going hungry. I think the amounts are small enough that there would be other issues far ahead of that and think the whole issue is more of a partisan one than a real concern.
Unemployment insurance? Well sure we don’t want people to crash and burn because they lost their job but the idea that no one ever milks it just isn’t reality. My brother got stuck in that trap. He decided to relax for a while when he got laid off and by the time he started looking the market had dried up. He is living in my spare room his unemployment having run out. Again not anything I’ve heard anyone trumpet as being on the top of their list to reform but it’s amazing how many people I know who only found jobs when the funds were running out. True those that were already maxed out looked for work right off the bat because they couldn’t afford the pay cut but plenty of people took long “vacations” and pretending otherwise is silly.
Now I can see that making it too complicated to vote could discourage voters. Why can’t you see that others hate the idea of voter fraud and want to do what they can to prevent it. Sure there may be those who take advantage of the situation to improve their political position. Surprisingly enough I bet it matches those who take advantage of the lose voting laws to improve their position. Since all states with ID requirements now give free Id’s (don’t they?) I really don’t see why there should be a problem. Every “old” person I know has an ID and as for the poor the only ones I know who don’t are the ones with legal troubles. Personally I think this was a made up issue to get conservative voters worked up. I don’t think there is that much fraud that it makes a statistical difference. I also don’t believe the “disenfranchise” crap that gets slung around on the other side either. While there may not of been a current problem there has been in the past and it’s hardly crazy to want to secure the political process from fraud. I find the lack of accuracy to be concerning. These disenfranchised people can’t legally drive, cash a check, get any govt assistance, get a room, rent a house, get a job, but if they can vote your all good? Sounds like the disenfranchising has nothing at all to do with voting.
But lets get to your main point. The Repubs are willing to “punish” the group for the actions of the few (though I do believe 2 out of 3 of your examples are just made up and hardly major issues) and since at least some rich people don’t create jobs we should use that logic and soak all the rich. Well it may make you fell all warm and fuzzy it really doesn’t touch the basic question. Will raising taxes adversely effect the economy? Right now thats what the Repubs are saying and why they can push and keep even some moderate voters behind them.
Hi EEllis,
In answer to your question on the “main point’ — will raising taxes really help the economy? The answer is “no,’ not as a standalone solution. But “yes” as a way to reduce the necessity for cuts in benefit programs for the poor and middle class. If the latter have more to spend because far fewer rich folks pay more in taxes, that will definitely improve the economy.
If a state wants to doom the poor to starvation and leave the children of “parasite” families’ children to live like second-country citizens while their parent find their bootstraps…
Well, who is WASHINGTON to argue, HUH!? Everyone knows that Washington is SATAN! That’s how moderate people argue!
Meanwhile, real humans argue that:
raising taxes is sometimes wrong and sometimes right
and
lowering taxes is sometimes right and sometimes wrong
EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD BE BANNED.
I know one person who milks the system for all it’s worth. I think most people would rather work than take an “extended vacation”.
But I know a ton of Republicans who feel that the poor are not paying their way and that they are leeches on society. These Republicans actually want the taxes on the poor increased (they want everyone to pay taxes- not just those earning above a certain amount). And these same Republicans want the government to stop sending poor people “entitlement” money because the program does give more money per child. By the way, I’ve known some of these Republicans since high school and at one point in time they were struggling, not paying taxes since they didn’t earn enough and they relied upon others to help them through the time. The real kicker for me is that these Republicans claim to be Christians. When in my view (and I realize it’s just one view) Christians should be helping those in need. Whenever I point that out to these Republicans, they say they would help the poor but that they pay taxes. At the same time they want taxes to be reduced. And taxes have been reduced… yet I’m not sure people in this country are actually donating more money to charities in these difficult times.
Sorry for being ranty- it just makes me mad that some people would rather see humans suffer rather than improve others’ lives, the community and country.
As far as Absalon, “Meanwhile, real humans argue that: raising taxes is sometimes wrong and sometimes right and lowering taxes is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.”
Well, this is one of those times it’s right to raise taxes on the wealthy who can afford tax increases, and it’s also the time to lower taxes on those struggling to make ends meet. After all, this is the country of the rich also. If they want to improve the country then they can afford to pay for it. If they do not want to improve their country then our country will continue to head downhill….
BUt I also
Not necessarily. The rich, which is purposely undefined and generalized, spend much more and provide so many more jobs that just taking from them, having the govt eat up a chunk, then spitting out what remains to the “poor” may do little. What might raising taxes do? Well the “rich may put off buying a new car for a year. So what you say? Tell that to the auto workers, car sales men, etc. Maybe they’ll put off buying that new house or maybe the remodel the were thinking of. Screw them right, but what about the contractor, plumber, electrician, painter, etc. Now I don’t know any specific plan to target the “poor”. Sure there have been ideas, also lots of questions as in “could you cut this” from reporters. But your premise was some false construct about how the Republicans as some sort of whole wanted to do x y and z to the poor and how said things were unsupportable to even think about. That being the case you used some strange logic to justify soaking the “rich” because “not all of them provided jobs”. I believe I put forth a reasonable case that all of those things could be part of a conversation, tho I didn’t think they were real important, and how your logic for tax increases were far from logical. They are more about “getting” someone than any real cost/benefit. You have answered none of the points but that somehow taxing and giving some money beck will indeed help the economy. Sorry but I remain sceptical.
While they may be wrong there are people who believe that welfare and Govt money hurts as much or more than it helps. We have had whole generations that have never had lawful employment in the US. The system currently rewards single parent families and has turned obvious welfare payments into disguised tax returns thru the EIC. I’m not sure what the answer is but believing it’s not just throwing more money at the problem is not in itself inherently evil.
Let’s not forget the nutty Dems who think you can spend and spend and never run low on money, or print more for China to buy. If Reps are heartless, and some are, then Dems are dummies, and some are.
Of course republicans can’t actually call themselves the party of greed and ignorance, but it’s clear to see what their priorities are – and aren’t. Most of the country is struggling (and it will get worse), but R’s will never fight for the majority so long as they are ruled by the 20%.
I can’t forget that the rational behind lowering the tax rates on the rich was because they would increase savings and investments, in a word, capital. And this extra capital, financed by government debt, would spur investment in new technologies and new, more efficient industries. The income generated by all of this new investment would increase jobs, benefiting all of society, not just the wealthy, increasing tax revenues to pay back the federal government debt and in the end be higher than than they were before the cuts. The Heritage Institute, using their enhanced economic forecasting tools, said that the Bush tax cuts alone would produce 5% annual growth and reduce unemployment to 2.5% by 2011
They also said that a parallel effort to unburden industry, and especially the financial industry, would free private enterprise to add another 1 to 2 percentage points to the nation’s growth.
Of course, what their policies produced was a crushing debt load and the Great Recession. And now they are telling us that what we need are more tax cuts for the rich to increase savings and investment but now instead of using debt they want to finance further tax cuts by reducing payments to the poor, the unemployed and the elderly.
And we have people on this site calmly saying that maybe they are right. When have they been right?
Do they ever have to answer for the mess they have made of the economy? They reduced taxes on the rich, they passed or administratively delivered every means of suppressing wages that they could to transfer, redistribute, as much money to the wealthy as they could, building a huge pile of capital that was used to build plants and fund new technologies, overseas. It was used to fund the zero sum gambling known as the deriviates market that started our recent recession and whose losers we had to bailout.
Over 2 trillion dollars of that excess capital is currently sitting idle waiting for demand to pick up, in what country they really don’t care. Brazil, they have great opportunities in alternative fuels. Or maybe China, they weathered the recession rather well by keeping demand up during it. But the United States, forget it. Unless consumers are willing to go into debt again.
And people on this site know someone who is willing to coast on unemployment so that is good enough to justify transferring more money to the wealthy to continue their bold economic experiment that has been so good to them and such a disaster for the 98% who aren’t wealthy enough to own our own politicians and to buy our own oversized portion of free speech. Good for you. We deserve what we get and get what we deserve.
Does anyone know how the US safety net compares to other Western nations. I know the US tax burden is near the bottom. I would guess the US “safety net” is also at the bottom. I know we spend more than all other western nations COMBINED on defense. Once again, what is the US safety net as a percentage of GDP or tax revenues?
EEllis said:
I was thinking the same thing. I think all these accusations of “greed”, “callousness”, and “selfishness” are unfortunate.
That coasting on unemployment can make for some pretty rocky coasting, and of course it isn’t open-ended (as some would seem to suggest). When I was collecting those benefits (the company I worked for folded (due to no fault of it’s hard working employees). I had to work on the side in order to keep paying my bills, othewise I would have lost my home and my credit rating. I have a college degree, as well as a l-o-n-g and solid record of work experience, but when I finally found a new job it was working nightshift for close to minimum wage. Given the current “job market” in Michigan, I am glad for the work. As for merkin’s request for accountability from the right? Well… who needs accountability when you have the option of selective amnesia instead.
I said
What I meant
They also said that a parallel effort to unburden industry, and especially the financial industry, through a rigorous course of deregulation would free private enterprise to add another 1 to 2 percentage points to the nation’s growth.
The spittle on the computer screen hid my omission from me until it was too late to correct it.
NR: “I was thinking the same thing. I think all these accusations of “greed”, “callousness”, and “selfishness” are unfortunate.”
I think we are all selfish. Some of us wish for a more equal Americs, where schools are good, roads are passable, bridges do not collapse, innovation, research and where no fellow citizen needlessly starves. And we know that this means we ALL pay whatever we can afford.
Others of us believe that it is fine to have a small wealthy class (1 or 2 percent of the population) with most of the assets (Bill Gates alone is worth more than the bottom 120 million people in this country), while 90 percent of America is worried about bills, retirement, losing their jobs because their employer wants more money. And the 8 percent or so between the low income and wealthy are comfortable. With the wealthiest laying less than those who have very little money. It is really nice to have that house on th e hill with your private security force while tens of millions Americans starve… In part because you want as much money as possible for yourself and no one else matters.
I was inking about the minimum wage earlier…. Someone on minimum wage would have to work a full day (8 hours times $7.50 = $60.00) just go be able to afford a night out for two at the theater…. $10 tickets each. ($20 total), another $20 for snacks for two ( up to $40 total) plus gas money…. Minus the taxes etc. that comes out of one’s salary.
Really the minimum wage should be raised. Or prices lowered.
StockBoyLA said:
Your comment seems to presuppose that none of the services that you mentioned could be provided by the private sector and that people who oppose government intervention in a particular area must necessarily be against that particular service being provided at all.
Is it really true that people who oppose government involvement in education are necessarily anti-education or that people who oppose government involvement in research are anti-research?
Most businesses in America are privately owned and privately run. They provide goods and services to the American people, and most Americans are not clamoring for these businesses to be own or run by the government. We would never argue that these Americans oppose or don’t care about a particular business simply by virtue of the fact that they oppose government intervention in these areas. It’s an irrational argument. Yet when it comes to education or research or various other government programs, people will resort to such arguments.
My point here is not to argue which services should be provided by the government and which should not, but rather, to argue that believing that a particular service should be provided by the private sector does not make a person selfish.
I think that this is the point that EEllis was trying to make above, and I think it’s a perfectly valid point to raise.
You are one of the people who are unfortunately close to maxed out and as a result couldn’t afford the pay cut and had to look hard right away. Many are not. I also think the way unemployment is set up discourages part time and temp work. My brother did get a “temp” job at HP in Austin. They only hire contract workers for a short period and he figured what the heck it would space out his unemployment. Well he got lucky and got “fired” when his car broke down or he would of lost his unemployment for a temp job. I think you should be able to be payed until you reach your full previous salary encouraging any work you can get but that’s not how it works, you get your half salary and then they cut off benefits. There seems to be lots of ways to change unemployment for the better and the fact that it might also save some money doesn’t mean it’s evil.
Of course each program is run by individual states and I’m sure has differences.
I think it’s about being willing to see more than one side. Some people are more focused on equality while my concern is more about freedom. I don’t think either is wrong it’s just what you are worried about. Right now due to my health I’m well below the poverty line. Somehow I don’t blame the rich in the least. I am more concerned with doing what I want to do, living free than I am about getting a govt check I haven’t earned. Now I don’t want people to go hungry or lose their house but no one should get paid just because.
So every job needs to be a job you can raise a family on? What about the unskilled, lazy, or just plain stupid? Forget after school jobs because who will pay $12hr to a kid scooping ice cream right.
StockboyLA:”Some of us wish for a more equal Americs, …. And we know that this means we ALL pay whatever we can afford.”
“Others of us believe that it is fine to have a small wealthy class (1 or 2 percent of the population) with most of the assets…”
——————-
There’s another 80% (figure pulled out of my ear) that thinks making the roads usable, et. al, doesn’t require everyone to be taxed “whatever we can afford” (whatever that means).
I agree with the sentiment of protecting those lower down on the ladder, however, this remark framed in a negative way could use a little closer looking at:
“(Bill Gates alone is worth more than the bottom 120 million people in this country),”
You mention a guy who has created thousands of jobs, and through his philanthropic works has benefited thousands of very poor folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
“As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second-most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity.”
Plus he has gotten several blood sucking super rich capitalists (including Warren Buffet) to pledge to give half their fortunes to charity.
I would venture to say he has employed his money more effectively than some government programs. Just sayin.
Did you know we give more every year, by tens of billions, to Israel than we do to food stamps? Why dont we just end all of our foreign aid or at least the foreign aid to first world countries prior to allowing people to starve.
Of course some do not actually care about the money involved. They care about ideology and their personal anger and rage at a general “lazy person” somewhere defined in their mind(often a relative oddly like in EEllis case). Those that support those programs have also met lazy people but instead think of all the hard working people that fell on hard times and barely skated by with help from the gov that they know. It is a half full, half empty moment that is only about how you look at the world until…you start pushing to get rid of things based on your perception.
Ideology is of course different. Some believe that gov should never give any money to the poor. Of course some also believe that the wealthy should be taxed at 90%. We as a nation would be wise to turn against extreme ideology running rough shod over sane policy. Of course some like Perry believe that money should be given to the wealthy and corps instead of the poor but that is an entire other problem and ball of wax, at least he lacks compassion I suppose.
As for the side point of whether taxing the wealthy would harm the economy why on earth are we even having this debate over what never seems to go beyond a 3% increase?
3% will really melt everything down? So we must have never prospered in the past since they almost always paid more than they have over the last decade(speaking of the last 80 years or so). Look no proof, NO PROOF exists that lower taxes on the wealthy helps the economy and that is after 4 decades of this trickle down lie and a decade of bottomed out bankrupt the nation rates. If you dont want to raise taxes on the wealthy due to ideology fine, that is valid. If you dont want to do it out of fear of harming an economy that was built on low taxes for the wealthy then I am sorry but you are dumb.
You write: “Why don’t Republicans want to tax the rich? Because, they say, these people are “jobs creators.” Except most probably aren’t, And a number are actually and demonstrably job destroyers. But those facts aside (facts don’t matter with Republican present day logic) some rich are not jobs creators.”
From ‘probably aren’t’ to ‘putting these facts aside’. Where are the facts here?
Do you even read the posts or just scan to see how it fits your beliefs? You mention “personal anger and rage” right before my name, which may or may not have been intended, when what I said is it’s something we can look at. Does anyone really believe that there is no way to save money while still providing the same or better service? But lets still insult and misrepresent the issues to advance our own preferences. Right now I think the Govt takes in enough money. I would like them to get a handle on spending. After the fact if, to retire debt, they wish to visit the idea of taxes then fine. Right now any major tax changes would have to be included in major tax reform. Possible but not what the pres is pushing. Pretend I’m evil, that I want people to starve, whatever childish crap you can think of. It is childish by the way. Those that think insults and name calling are how you get what you want.
I’m not saying everyone who is for taxes or a Dem is childish. I’m speaking of a particular type, and every side has them, that has become increasingly popular especially on line.
Now as to aid to Israel sure we can look at it but the idea that we get nothing for that money is foolish and naive. It is the only stable and genuinely democratic state in the Middle East. It is now a bulwark against the aggressive intents of Iran and other nations that threaten the middle east. Those that scoff at the importance of the ME to our safety and security should think about what would happen in oil prices go up 5 to 10 times what they are now. The result would make our current recession look like a speed bump. Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank. The installations, lift capabilities, the equipment and food storage capacity, and the trained manpower are instantly at hand in Israel. It is the only country in the area that makes itself available to the United States, in any contingency.
Can we cut? I think we should look but lets not pretend it’s all charity.
EEllis-Do you always hunt out reasons to feel maligned so that you can hang yourself on a cross or do you merely search for cause to insult people, oh yea that is what you do lol. It was not intended I was noting your example to not have to explain the “type” of relative or association I was speaking of. I have a sister in law and at least one other friend that views the world in a similar manner and for a similar reason, a sibling through which they view those in those programs, while I know others that view the programs through the lens of the success stories. As for “rage and anger” if you do not have those feelings toward those that are willfully being lazy and getting something for nothing than I apologize for you being above humanity but that would make me angry and also makes my friends angry. The question is who you view as the “typical recipient” and if you see them as the lazy or the down on their luck it will change your view of the programs. I was noting the half full half empty manner in which these perceptions are formed not attacking you because you told a very valid story. I am also open, as I have noted a bajillion times, to other ideas like trading food stamps for soup kitchens and the like because I know food stamps welfare and the like distort the market, remember I am a libertarian I just do not like the let us burn it down with no options and everything will get better ethos because it wont and charities will not either enough to meet demand.
“But lets still insult and misrepresent the issues to advance our own preferences. Right now I think the Govt takes in enough money. I would like them to get a handle on spending. After the fact if, to retire debt, they wish to visit the idea of taxes then fine. Right now any major tax changes would have to be included in major tax reform. Possible but not what the pres is pushing. Pretend I’m evil, that I want people to starve, whatever childish crap you can think of. It is childish by the way. Those that think insults and name calling are how you get what you want.”
Are you just going off here? I get it “no new taxes I am a Republican I am a Republican” but other than that and insulting me what are you trying to say? Is cutting foreign aid a bad idea to make up for the funding problem because that is what I suggested at the start. The tax issue is separate and I would be happy to retract if you have proof of lower taxes helping us out here, instead we have a decades worth of proof that in fact is not the case.
“I’m not saying everyone who is for taxes or a Dem is childish. I’m speaking of a particular type, and every side has them, that has become increasingly popular especially on line.”
Apparently you just view me that way, not that I care but just helping you in pointing the laser at the intended target.
“Now as to aid to Israel sure we can look at it but the idea that we get nothing for that money is foolish and naive. It is the only stable and genuinely democratic state in the Middle East. It is now a bulwark against the aggressive intents of Iran and other nations that threaten the middle east.”
Yet if we cant help those that are down and out in our own nation and our infrastructure is crumbling and we do not need to raise taxes in anyway then how can we afford this? Why is foreign aid suddenly off the table when we spend more in it then programs we like to discuss cutting, gutting or ending with no replacement nor thought to the consequences. I am not saying end foreign aid, I am saying if we truly need to cut something we should start there OR we should consider raising taxes prior to getting rid of things that are actually needed. We pay for things we likely do not need but foreign aid should come way down on the list after our populations general well being. Do you have an issue with that as well?
“Those that scoff at the importance of the ME to our safety and security should think about what would happen in oil prices go up 5 to 10 times what they are now. The result would make our current recession look like a speed bump.”
Yet oddly oil has been much higher after our backing of Israel in 1967 as opposed to the price adjusted by inflation prior to that. In short you are speaking prediction for which I see little proof and actually the opposite is what we have evidence of as far as prices go.
“Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank. The installations, lift capabilities, the equipment and food storage capacity, and the trained manpower are instantly at hand in Israel. It is the only country in the area that makes itself available to the United States, in any contingency.”
And maybe if we didnt spend so much time driving tanks around the area in the first place things wouldnt be so bad there. Just noting that “instability” and us starting a lot of coups and wars in the region may just be connected.
“Can we cut? I think we should look but lets not pretend it’s all charity.”
That is not the question. The question is can we afford that while people here are hurting. If we refuse to cut taxes and refuse to fix entitlements and refuse to cut defense then we need to get the money somewhere and foreign aid especially to first world nations makes a lot more sense and shows a great deal more compassion than cutting the programs that we constantly discuss, foodstamps NWS FEMA welfare UE.
@MSF
Both foreign aid and food stamps are small percentages of the US budget. Aid to Israel and Egypt is $4 billion. Aid to Afghanistan and Iraq, not military spending, is $8 billion. This totals $12 billion to the top four in aid.
With the bad economic times, food stamp or SNAP costs were $68 billion in 2010. This is double the spending during 2004 to 2006.
Both foreign aid and SNAP are small, by a factor greater than 100, of money spent on the military, SSI and Medicare.
Cutting foreign aid and SNAP won’t help the deficit or win political points.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
LOL!!! It’s so funny that you don’t see that you just did what you are accusing me of. Oh and by the way you just said you were “noting” me as an example so I guess it was reasonable to state my case then.
As for some of your other points even tho they have been touched on before. I believe the Govt has enough money to due what we need it to. I don’t think you give anyone who has proven themselves financially incompetent more money as a way of “solving” the problem. First you fix the problem or they usually end up owing even more. I’m not particularly advocating any cuts to any program never mind soup kitchens(?????) instead of food stamps. I have to admit I am getting a bit short because you restate my case and get it wrong every time on every point.
Not a Republican and no I don’t want to give someone who can’t manage their money, or rather our money, even more when they have enough to do the job now.
I said that where? In fact I said we could look at aid to Israel but also mentioned some of the benefits. Want another every bill we give Israel is about 70,000 us jobs because what we give then they used to buy military hardware from us so considered it stimulus money. or look at the 130 bill a year we pour into NATO or the 30 bill a year in the far east. It would be stupid to quit all aid and military payments overseas but sure I’m open to looking at lowering almost any program
By not wasting so much of our money.
I never said it was. I did say tho we could, and maybe should, look at some of the domestic programs I didn’t see major savings. So again you are creating your own dialog and rewriting others opinions.
I think foreign aid should be use almost exclusively to promote “our populations general well being” now what we should look at is how effective it is and how much it costs to get the job done.
That’s some logic. “Hey I’ve never been shot so I must be bullet proof!” We can just ignore rising global demand, increasing production cost due to availability, any actual discussion because you see little proof. And yes I was being very condescending because that was an unbelievable intellectually dishonest comment.
If we don’t cut anything and we don’t reform anything then we are screwed anyway. I would rather we crash quick so we can move on. You’re whining about the size of the spoon to use in bailing a leaky boat.
When it comes to cutting: “a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money”.
I agree. Sure we should prioritize, and not always cash value, but just getting things to where they make financial sense would be a great relief.
It all comes down to priorities. What is important? Some of us think that people (regular, ordinary people) should actually be on that list somewhere.
“LOL!!! It’s so funny that you don’t see that you just did what you are accusing me of. Oh and by the way you just said you were “noting” me as an example so I guess it was reasonable to state my case then.”
Whats funny is that I specifically did it very obviously to punch back. I am not missing the fact that I did that, I did it purposefully
. And yes it was a very reasonable thing for you to tell the story, where did I attack your story? I just used it to highlight that we tend to look at those programs through a half empty half full lens that is informed by our personal experiences with those on the programs regardless of whether or not those people are a good example or not(and no I am not saying your example is a bad metric but merely that good/bad metrics do not matter to the lens we use but instead our personal experiences trump the metric). And soup kitchens and others ideas are mine, I do not like the concept of “cutting” when UE is up and inflation in many areas is as well(like food) but I do support replacing them with better options when they function badly. I also get short when I am using a story of yours as an example and you in turn take it as a personal attack negating your point which it in no ways was. You seem to want “cuts” I want “improvements” but that in no way means that we cant save money but instead that generic “cuts” are not the sole answer to all our problems.
“Not a Republican and no I don’t want to give someone who can’t manage their money, or rather our money, even more when they have enough to do the job now.”
Problem is that if we want to balance our books we need both. If we just want to cut gov though we can do that. What we do is dependent on our desires, if you want to erase the deficit spending and pay down the national debt, as I do, then you need both not just one. I would also note by that metric nothing but local city govs (and then only some) deserve any revenue ever because they are all notoriously bad stewards and that goes for good times and bad.
“I said that where?”
When you began defending it and seemed to take issue with making cuts there as opposed to tinkering with safety net programs in a time when the safety net is highly needed. I may have misread what was a “well it does some good” as a “we cant do that oh no” though. We cant afford it, we also cant afford to continue to throw financial bones to the defense industry in such a way. We cant afford to not negotiate for meds, we cant afford to be Europes military force and we cant afford to give foreign aid away like we do. First its anti-free market and second it distorts that market by pumping up industries that otherwise would shrink and from a free market perspective should. First world nations should not be eligible for US tax payer money, they should get that from taxing their own people which I happen to think is rather sane.
“By not wasting so much of our money.”
A great bumper sticker but we need numbers and where to make these cuts that will equal the amount that we are under water.
“I never said it was. I did say tho we could, and maybe should, look at some of the domestic programs I didn’t see major savings. So again you are creating your own dialog and rewriting others opinions.”
I may have misread your defense of foreign aid when it was merely an explanation but you also form your own inner dialogues which is why we are having this discussion in the first place.
“That’s some logic. “Hey I’ve never been shot so I must be bullet proof!” We can just ignore rising global demand, increasing production cost due to availability, any actual discussion because you see little proof. And yes I was being very condescending because that was an unbelievable intellectually dishonest comment.”
What is intellectually dishonest is taking a prediction that has no basis in history and using that as a reason we “MUST” do something while ignoring that the history runs counter to your argument. And yes I am being condescending there. Have we ever had an oil embargo that was tied to not supporting Israel because we did have for supporting them. Have you not noticed every time we go on a ME adventure gas prices go up not down? Have you not noticed that every time that adventure ends gas never goes down to the previous price levels but instead just continues to climb? You are saying that without our involvement things would be worse which is a prediction based on nothing but theory. I am noting real history and market realities so I would avoid getting overly snarky with the facts person when you are making a theory argument especially when the theory fails to explain the realities of the history.
“If we don’t cut anything and we don’t reform anything then we are screwed anyway. I would rather we crash quick so we can move on. You’re whining about the size of the spoon to use in bailing a leaky boat.”
That is probably one of the most disgusting things I have seen said in awhile, we do not need to emulate post soviet Russia. You do not know for sure what the outcome would be but you desire for it to come quickly to get it over with even though it is very much in our power to avoid such an outcome. We merely need to cut, adjust and raise some taxes and we will not only be on solid fiscal ground we will actually be paying down our debts. Sorry but I do not see throwing up our hands and walking away as a mature response. I would also avoid throwing hate on the person at least trying to bail and reserve it for the one sitting in the back of the boat lounging saying “eh who cares its over anyway.”
Rudi is also correct I misread a source on the numbers a few days ago and garbled the info, foreign aid is not more than foodstamps that still doesnt change the fact that if we are to make life harder for people that are part of this nation or pay the taxes here we should first look at money going to govs that do not need our help.
In short explaining the oil price tie to our foreign policy stance is akin to explaining the containment theory of the cold war. The explanation is straight forward and makes sense but reality ran counter to the theory and caused major issues and blowback that was all purely predicated on a theory. Noting the problem with it conflicting with real historical events is how we change bad policy theories.
Containment in eastern europe worked, containment in SE asia was an utter debacle that was predicated on a bad understanding of what was taking place and the tensions already existing in the region by the players involved. Decades of blowback and bad results is a sign that the ME policies have more in common with SE asian containment as opposed to eastern europe containment.