03-05-2013, 03:03 PM
So, I've been listening and reading the positions from the left recently and I have come to the following conclusion.
We really don't pay for the services we get. We're a nation of cheapskates.
That being said do we REALLY need all these services and all the people administering the services?
and lets not get it twisted...those of us who pay the lion share of the taxes DO in fact pay for the services we receive. The other 50% or so don't. This is indisputable.
So, what is the solution? We can't tax the poor into abject poverty and starvation any more than we can reasonably ask someone to pay 40% of their income to the government. Both are crazy to me.
Now, I realize that no poor person will starve if they pay some taxes and people like me and others on here can afford another few percentage points but ultimately something has to give. So, what is it? Do we keep taxing the "working wealthy" into poverty or do we cut bureaucracy to save the most vital services for those who most need it?
It really bothers me how some people on here are ok with the government taking 40% of someones take home pay or raising taxes on me to give it to other people making it harder for me to raise the children I fathered and easier for someone else to raise kids I didn't father. It also bothers me that we think so many people need help. Maybe they do, but I've not seen one shred of evidence stating that if we cut spending on non-essential programs up to 20%(I just made this % up) people will starve or die in the streets. The problem as I see it is that we just can't agree on what programs are non-essential. Let me spell it out for you....every program we can't afford is non-essential. So, unless you're okay with surrendering your entire check to the government to pay for the services we have now you must look to reduce the outlays over the next 10-20 years to sustainable levels. I don't even want to run without debt, debt in and of itself isn't bad, as long as its manageable. Debt that consumes our entire GDP is f'ing crazy and furthermore we're on the road that leads to our entire GDP servicing that debt. Which really will lead to people dying in the streets and people starving.
So, our leftists will say that THEY'RE RICH they can afford it and the righties will say THE POOR ARE LEECHES and to be honest both are probably a little true so lets leave that out of it.
No one can reasonably argue that taxes will dig us out of this and likewise with regard to spending cuts. There can be no sacred cows, my money or your programs. Both deserve equal consideration...IMO.
and this thread wouldn't be complete without the obligatory FUC OBAMA post and the useless emoticons....
Now thats out of the way lets have a meaningful discussion.
one more thing. debt does matter. if debt didn't matter we wouldn't pay taxes...
We really don't pay for the services we get. We're a nation of cheapskates.
That being said do we REALLY need all these services and all the people administering the services?
and lets not get it twisted...those of us who pay the lion share of the taxes DO in fact pay for the services we receive. The other 50% or so don't. This is indisputable.
So, what is the solution? We can't tax the poor into abject poverty and starvation any more than we can reasonably ask someone to pay 40% of their income to the government. Both are crazy to me.
Now, I realize that no poor person will starve if they pay some taxes and people like me and others on here can afford another few percentage points but ultimately something has to give. So, what is it? Do we keep taxing the "working wealthy" into poverty or do we cut bureaucracy to save the most vital services for those who most need it?
It really bothers me how some people on here are ok with the government taking 40% of someones take home pay or raising taxes on me to give it to other people making it harder for me to raise the children I fathered and easier for someone else to raise kids I didn't father. It also bothers me that we think so many people need help. Maybe they do, but I've not seen one shred of evidence stating that if we cut spending on non-essential programs up to 20%(I just made this % up) people will starve or die in the streets. The problem as I see it is that we just can't agree on what programs are non-essential. Let me spell it out for you....every program we can't afford is non-essential. So, unless you're okay with surrendering your entire check to the government to pay for the services we have now you must look to reduce the outlays over the next 10-20 years to sustainable levels. I don't even want to run without debt, debt in and of itself isn't bad, as long as its manageable. Debt that consumes our entire GDP is f'ing crazy and furthermore we're on the road that leads to our entire GDP servicing that debt. Which really will lead to people dying in the streets and people starving.
So, our leftists will say that THEY'RE RICH they can afford it and the righties will say THE POOR ARE LEECHES and to be honest both are probably a little true so lets leave that out of it.
No one can reasonably argue that taxes will dig us out of this and likewise with regard to spending cuts. There can be no sacred cows, my money or your programs. Both deserve equal consideration...IMO.
and this thread wouldn't be complete without the obligatory FUC OBAMA post and the useless emoticons....
Now thats out of the way lets have a meaningful discussion.
one more thing. debt does matter. if debt didn't matter we wouldn't pay taxes...