How will Obama v. Democrats v. Republican Battle Play Out?

[tobee43]

"I just want to get rid of federal government interference in my life. Protect me, enforce property rights, prevent trade wars among the states.. very limited role."
But what part of these are you willing to pay for and how much? How can be it done fairly, do we each paid $100 a year in taxes or a $1000 year I mean you got to pay something for these service. People cry I just want my money not to be taken and use for this or that. So let's go to a flat taxes or value tax but that still means some deadbeat might get you money. I say let everything go to privatize industry and let the free market work. How do you think we'd live if the infrastructure of this country is not maintain by government every service you need would be a la carte. My guess is you be so broke paying all those private contractors you would be worse off than you every though possible. But you'd be happy that the damn Government didn't steal my money and give it to them people.

i absolutely SO agree with you...

privatizing ...which i posted on another thread, i truly believe is the answer to many of the unemployment issues, the government interference, privatizing would improve services....improve the free market system...from social services to medicare...

i think we can't forget the government contract with Halliburton..........now that's really something to be sick about!...so please let ME hire whom i wish....is that point!

[msm859]

Our taxes are only too low to sustain the government if you believe that the federal government has a role in every aspect of our lives.

I understand how little of the federal government goes to "welfare" as you define it. Its a philosophical issues of theft for me, not an issue of numbers. I know all the numbers, and I can't settle an argument over the principle of whether I should have to pay taxes to support others on the basis of numbers. Even if you only take 1 dollar from me and give it to someone else, it is still theft. The argument is not how much is it ok to steal, for me it is a principle that government should not be doing that. But I would include the social security system in the welfare system, as benefits are not proportional to what was paid in, and it is an intergenerational transfer of wealth (aside from the dead weight losses it imposes by allowing people with something to contribute to be idle).

You are I would agree for sure on the deficit, we are destroying the future, we only disagree on the fix. I believe in a massive reduction in almost every aspect of government. I believe in the soveriegn individual supported by the rule of law and a limited role of government.

The deficits are unsustainable, I will never argue that they aren't. I have never said anything to the contrary. I just want to get rid of federal government interference in my life. Protect me, enforce property rights, prevent trade wars among the states.. very limited role.

We have an estate tax not an inheritance tax... I believe if we are going to tax wealth, we should do it with an inheritance tax in place of an estate tax. That way at least we would be promoting distributing the estate over more people. Then the exemption would be based on how many people you give the money to. I believe very strongly in property rights, including the right to the fruits of my labor to do with as a I please. Gift taxes and estate and inheritance taxes infringe on those rights. Especially at the grotesque rates proposed by proponents. I might be inclined to agree to allow estate taxes, but the problem is they are usually accompanied by gift taxes. I do not believe I should be limited in my right to give my property to anyone I wish at any time for any consideration or lack of consideration I choose to accept. I do not believe that inherited wealth is necessarily a good thing, and I would encourage people not to do it, but despite my beliefs I do not believe the government should get involved.

I cannot argue with any of your facts, never intended to take issue with facts. The issue for me is the issue of the role of government, the morality of slavery (even fractional slavery where the government takes just part of my labor for the benefit of another master). You can't settle a conflict between my belief system and yours with facts or figures. I want a smaller government which does not take from me to provide for another. That is the role of charity. Charity is voluntary, not forced at the barrel of a gun. Again, I think charity is good, but not a place for government involvement.

I appreciate your arguments and point of view, they are far more rational and thought out than most I have encountered who share your point of view.

Thank you for the end compliment. I enjoy an intelligent debate without useless rhetoric. I also actually have a a degree in Economics and was studying supply side economics in college when it was first brought up in the 80's so this has a certain interest to me. More importantly though I have an interest in my children and grandchildren's future. Given your passion I suspect I would never convince you of my side which is okay, but I also have no doubt that you are likewise concerned about the future of this country. Sorely missing from much of the conversation is any honest debate. Your idea of the role of government may be different than mine but I suspect you are at least receptive to some objective facts. The deficit is a fact. The recent tax "compromise" is a Trojan Horse that is going to make it that much harder if at all possible to fix. Weeks ago the Republicans were arguing you cannot extend unemployment because it will add $50 billion to the deficit, yet they don't blink to add almost $900 billion in the next 2 years because they got the only thing they cared about -- tax cuts for the rich ($250k may not be, but they even voted against it when it was a $1 million dollar limit). Said cuts will probably be extended again in 2 years. I suggest to you that at said time your concern of paying for welfare benefits or of this country becoming socialist will be the least of your concerns. Your real concern and what was just proven is that a plutocracy is what will bring this country down. If you think about the macro picture most businesses in this country actually depend on a vibrant middle class to succeed. A plutocracy is hard at work trying to destroy that. I have my own business and virtually all of my customers are the middle class. I come from a family of 7 kids and all of us became home owners 6 out of 7 easily did better than our parents. I am concerned how many of the grand kids will be able to say they did better than their parents. Would you rather pay 5% more in taxes but make 10% more in profits, or pay 5% less in taxes but make 10% less in profits? One of the primary purposes of government is to provide for the common good which should mean to promote an environment were all can succeed and have equal opportunities. As I just read somewhere, China is developing bullet trains and their kids are going to school 6 days a week. We are building religious theme parks were our kids are going on rides with dinosaurs.
Balance is a tough act with government in general and federal vs state and I would probably agree that the federal is too involved. As you can see I am from CA and it is funny when on some blogs the "red" state fanatics are calling for the feds to quit giving aid to the states - pointing to "liberal" CA, but not realizing that CA sends the feds more money than they get back unlike what typically happens in most "red" states. So in a state micro view I would prefer the feds were out of almost everything - CA would be better off. But certain things have to be considered as a whole country, were that line is drawn is the debate.

Again as to the inheritance tax I believe it is a necessary tool to combat greed and a plutocracy -- and a better way to obtain revenue to fund the government than many other ways. With that as my concern I don't have a problem with generous exemptions -- perhaps to allow 1 generation a comfortable life -- and if they are smart and industrious more. To abolish it will destroy this country as we know it. Until the national debt is gone though I would be more inclined to favor one of those draconian rates of 55% or more on estates over $10 million. If the ruling plutocracy knew that they would more likely yield their influence to balance the budget and get rid of the debt -- unlike what they just used it for to add $900 billion to the debt in the next 2 years. Both you, I and 99% of the rest of this country would be better off with more "draconian" tax structure.

[chrisdfw]

Both you, I and 99% of the rest of this country would be better off with more "draconian" tax structure.

Maybe so, you sound like a very practical person. I am an idealist, I prefer that everyone pay something for government services (which I believe should be limited) even if it is a small amount, just because it makes people better citizens. I don't believe in having government play such a large role in the country, of course you are correct, WHERE to draw the line is the debate. I draw the line at taking money and doling it out for private benefits. No government should be in that role. But in our system the federal government was supposed to have an even more limited role.

Powerful corporations and powerful government go hand in hand. If the federal government wasn't so powerful, corporations would have little incentive to get involved in politics. If the government didn't hand out benefits to one group at the expense of another, labor unions and corporations alike would not be so involved. Money is power only because the government is so large and powerful, having the the ability to take from me against my will and give to someone else.

I believe big government promotes plutocracy, not counters it. IF the government did not consume so much economic activity, the wealthy would not have so much power. Democrats and republicans both favor big government and poweful corporations. Nobody with any real power does anything to reduce the scope of government, on the contrary, democrats wanted a huge expansion of the government into the medical sector... before that republicans wanted... wait for it.. a huge expansion of the government into health care (medicare prescription drugs). The common theme is that they both want to take money from the public at large (mostly from future generations) and use it provide private benefits to certain people (either the poor, the old, the rich, but mostly the powerful)

In the end as long as the government has the power to take from one person and give it to another, the very plutocracy you cite will be a problem. It is only when there is limited government does the plutocracy cease to be a problem.

I am not a pragmatist though, I don't care about the result as much as I care about the principle of freedom. I believe the government should provide and defend freedom, whatever the cost. If people starve to death, I am willing to accept that if that is the cost of freedom. I am in the tiny minority I know... "most men don't want freedom, just a master that doesn't beat them".. I can't remember the person who said that, but I believe it is true and that is the heart of the issue. People want to be comfortable, the want the illusion of security and are willing to sacrifice freedom to get it. I understand the desire to be comfortable, but to me, the price is too high. If even 1% of my income is taken to provide for someone else against my will, that is too much. I believe charity has to be voluntary, or it is immoral.

Economically we might be better off if we provide some sort of safety net (maybe.. I am not so sure) but I am willing to forgo the increase in utility to defend the principle of freedom.

I actually believe we should be paying more taxes in quite a few instances. I believe we should be paying higher sewer fees, as our infrastructure is crumbling, more gasoline taxes as our roads are in disrepair. Higher fees for public services like water, to support the true cost of providing the services. But most of these things are better provided for at the state and local level where people understand the needs, not by taking money from California to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Taxes are an inevitable cost of society, but the government picking the winners and losers has got to stop, why does an ethanol farmer deserve a subsidy, but someone growing cotton in texas does not. Why does a poor person with no job get food stamps at the expense of a middle class self employed business owner? As long as the government is picking between groups, plutocracy will rein as those with the money spend it to influence government.

I am willing to sacrifice being better off for the sake of freedom. In the short term I believe everyone may need to sacrifice to get the budget back on track, but primarily through spending cuts as we scale back government and get the beast out of the economic game. In the end we can't afford not to do something, people have lost faith in the government. 80% of the public is against a bailout, but it goes through, what that says is that the government chose to bestow private benefits on wealthy corporations as the expense of future generations against the will of the people. It could never happen if the government was not in the business of bestowing private benefits.

[chrisdfw]

[QUOTE=diesillady;482676 How do you think we'd live if the infrastructure of this country is not maintain by government every service you need would be a la carte. My guess is you be so broke paying all those private contractors you would be worse off than you every though possible. But you'd be happy that the damn Government didn't steal my money and give it to them people.[/QUOTE]

We can pay for many legitimate government services a la carte. Gasoline taxes should go for roads, fees to ride the bus should pay for public transit. Water and sewer fees should maintain the sewers. Etc.

How we pay for things is less important to me that what we are paying for. Flat tax, value tax, I don't care as much about that as dismantling the government paying private benefits. I don't think the government should take money from me and give it to someone else for a private benefit. No more welfare, section 8, food stamps, social security, medicare, medicaid, wall street bailouts, GM bailouts, ethanol subsidies, etc. Nothing that takes money from one citizen to give a benefit to another.

Public goods are different. The military defends everyone in the country equally. Food stamps allow one person to eat, but forces another person to pay for it. There is a big difference because the government is choosing to favor one over another. That is not a legitimate role of government.

Infrastructure should be paid for by those most directly benefitting wherever possible. Property taxes should pay for local police, since they are protecting the people who live in the area. Gas taxes should pay for roads, those that use the roads the most pay the most. Some things don't fit neatly into a category like the military, so we can fund that with a general sales tax or income tax.

[helpme2010]

I agree and disagree with the statement about dismantling government benefits. I am all for privatizing social security for example, but only a certain amount. You never know, even if you are doing pretty good, that suddenly something can go wrong and you may need the help of the government. One problem with giving the corporations complete control is the level of corruption and manipulation that would occur if they had control. I don't trust any corporation as far as I can throw a 200 pound weight. I think government needs to have far better quality in terms of monitoring corporations, which government fails miserably as well.

I also think its sad that gas taxes get pulled away from infrastructure road repairs, social security gets raided, money gets taken away from its original purpose and spent.

[diesillady]

Let start around 3500 BC Mesopotamia and go forward, the argument made on here and on all sides of the political spectrum about service and who pays for it has raged in one fail government from then to now. The little man feel he should not have to pay for the common need of other the ruling elite say bs you will pay and serve the society. The little man feels he should keep his hard earn money for himself and let the rich Lords, the war load, the king, now in this era the government pay not him this is also bs they never pay we do. This has been argued and fought over every since and if you know history then you know how the movie ends.. There is and always will be a total concentration of resource and wealth at the very top and everyone else is cannon fodder. America is just repeat of a cycle that has been spitting out fail society every since then. There has been a number of great society in man's history (Egyptian/ Persian, Roman/Ottoman the Han Dynasty, then throw in a few truly great man like Alexander, Genghis, Napoleon, or Hitler but they all fail,. Look along the historic time line of man and it's a recurring event.
Man has strive to achieve a social system where the tribe look out for the benefit of there weakest member to there strongest with some contribution from everyone. However it has so far always been corrupted and ultimate fail because it does not work. There is greed and ambition and natural Darwinism and the strong always win and when they get control it's dam hard to take it back. We as individual rail at the moon and with the internet it reach a lot more ear and eyes but it ain't changing Jack you will pay taxes no matter whether the power is the hand of the "R" OR "D" OR "TP". These organization don't give a darn about you because they just want power and the wealthy that flows from it. So which ever side you fell passion for they will just use it to get your vote to achieve there end game. Which is control and you still will pay taxes, maybe it's what you feel is the right thing to pay for with your tax money but you will still pay.

[tobee43]

Let start around 3500 BC Mesopotamia and go forward, the argument made on here and on all sides of the political spectrum about service and who pays for it has raged in one fail government from then to now. The little man feel he should not have to pay for the common need of other the ruling elite say bs you will pay and serve the society. The little man feels he should keep his hard earn money for himself and let the rich Lords, the war load, the king, now in this era the government pay not him this is also bs they never pay we do. This has been argued and fought over every since and if you know history then you know how the movie ends.. There is and always will be a total concentration of resource and wealth at the very top and everyone else is cannon fodder. America is just repeat of a cycle that has been spitting out fail society every since then. There has been a number of great society in man's history (Egyptian/ Persian, Roman/Ottoman the Han Dynasty, then throw in a few truly great man like Alexander, Genghis, Napoleon, or Hitler but they all fail,. Look along the historic time line of man and it's a recurring event.
Man has strive to achieve a social system where the tribe look out for the benefit of there weakest member to there strongest with some contribution from everyone. However it has so far always been corrupted and ultimate fail because it does not work. There is greed and ambition and natural Darwinism and the strong always win and when they get control it's dam hard to take it back. We as individual rail at the moon and with the internet it reach a lot more ear and eyes but it ain't changing Jack you will pay taxes no matter whether the power is the hand of the "R" OR "D" OR "TP". These organization don't give a darn about you because they just want power and the wealthy that flows from it. So which ever side you fell passion for they will just use it to get your vote to achieve there end game. Which is control and you still will pay taxes, maybe it's what you feel is the right thing to pay for with your tax money but you will still pay.

great POST......just after the first line i was thinking about the rise and falls during that past million years or so!! LOL!!

so true...every word of it!!!!

blog it will you!

[helpme2010]

There's a great book that I never finished 20 years ago called Atlas Shrugged by Anne Rein. It appeared to be about people that worked hard and contributed to society, breaking apart and starting their own society, thus leaving those that did not contribute to fend for themselves. I am dying to know how that ultimately turned out for both sides.

[tobee43]

There's a great book that I never finished 20 years ago called Atlas Shrugged by Anne Rein. It appeared to be about people that worked hard and contributed to society, breaking apart and starting their own society, thus leaving those that did not contribute to fend for themselves. I am dying to know how that ultimately turned out for both sides.

your really cute....it's ayn rand....and you should finish book...i'm not telling you the ending...fountainhead was my personal favorite.