- This topic has 4 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
The Tea Party will be absorbed and assimilated by the GOP. That movement might move the GOP back to the right, but it can't hope to do much else. The Two Party Duoaucracy will live on unabated.
That is what I believe as well. The only hope is for the Tea Party to retain its identity while still trying to push Republicans back to fiscal conservativism. I hope they do it but am taking a wait and see attitude.Abarnhart,Government sets the stage. It should not be in the business of doing anything other than ensuring a safe and secure environment for citizens and allowing business to do what it does. Those are the only "services" government is suited to provide. It is not semantics so much as probably a disagreement over the role of government.The major reason for the bloat in the cost of government is that they are doing or at least attempting to do things that government is not suited to do such as housing, welfare, and most of the social "services" they provide. Evidence and experience has shown that government can do these poorly at best and the degree of waste inherent in letting them do it is mind boggling.My question is: what did people do before all these government services. No, they did not starve to death. This will rapidly lead into a debate about the role of government and if we go there it probably deserves a new thread so we don?t hijack this one. That is the central debate or point that the Tea Party is getting at; What should government do?The deficits we as a country experience are not because of defense spending entirely though the left would have us think so. They are largely due to uncontrolled ?entitlement? (Man, I hate that word) spending. Defense spending is only 14% of the budget but education, health, and welfare eat up 45% of the budget while Federal pensions are another 15%. Source here. That is what the Tea Party is angry about, spending. The better question to ask ourselves is do we get value for our tax dollars? If your answer is yes then I challenge you to name what that value is and why you or state and local government could not spend it more wisely? I for one pay every year, I have only once gotten more than I paid in payroll taxes as a refund and the amount in excess of my payroll taxes I received I donated to charity. I would dearly love to see the numbers on how many people get a refund larger than the amount they paid in payroll taxes, that is a form of social spending as well, and one that is little remarked upon.
Scout,You're right; semantics doesn't explain away our differences. It only explains why I used the term "business" to describe a large organization that provides services. But your disagreement seems to go beyond the accuracy of my vocabulary and is more about my acceptance that government provides services.I disagree that people did not starve to death before the services became available. Malnutrition is like AIDS - it is rarely the stated cause of death but makes people significantly more likely to die from something a healthier person would survive. People are still dying.I think we have a collective social conscience and generally agree that we should try to help those truly in need. I don't think that enough individuals will actually contribute enough voluntarily. If you take religious and scientific research out of the equation, charities that use most of their money to provide basic human services don't get a lot. Before anyone gets up in arms, the reason I say to take religious contributions out of the equation is that most churches spend the lion's share of their income on being a church. In the US, the average is over 85% of the budget. That includes building and maintaining facilities, paying staff, spreading their message and various other expenses associated with that. I am not saying this is a bad thing, just that contributing to churches is something you should do if you believe that church's existence is a good thing for the community and world because of the spiritual work it does. If providing for the needy is your primary focus, there are more efficient choices. Scientific research is also very important and may lead to the eventual betterment of mankind and certainly needs some funding as well, but it does nothing for today's needy.So who is going to make sure the needy have options? Individuals and institutions have not met the challenge over the centuries and I have a hard time believing they will start now.
This will rapidly lead to a discussion of the role of government versus the role of a private individual. I am more than happy to debate this. Maybe you will have an answer that is logical and not emotional that I can accept. If so, you will be the first.Religion, politics, morality, and a lot of other things get wrapped up in it. I will only ask this; by what right does the government extort (tax) me in order to give the money that I (or any other taxpayer) have earned to someone else? For that is what welfare, medicaid, and public housing really is. I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this one. All morals aside, by what constitutional clause is my money taken and given to someone else that I don't know without my consent or approval? I am not arguing whether aid to the poor and indigent is the right thing to do or not. I just want to know how taxes to pay for welfare and social payments are any different than getting mugged. I have no choice but to give up my money or face punishment either way. The only difference I see is that one method is in the legal code and the other is not.
Does circular logic count? ;DOK, this is an opinion filled with debatable points...People band together because it works better for a lot of reasons. They can share resources and perform specialized jobs instead of everyone having to account for every single thing they need to survive or better yet prosper. Some people protect the community, some farm, some hunt, some prepare food, some build/maintain shelter and so on. As these communities get larger, they get more complex and there are so many interactions that some people have to begin doing nothing but managing the interactions to make sure there is enough shelter, enough crops and enough people assigned to defend the community. When communities begin interacting with other communities, it gets even more complex.This is when government becomes necessary. Control is needed or the community will descend into chaos.People will start to become aware of their relative value to the community and some form of currency has to be developed to reward work appropriately. The currency is traded for products or to get others to perform services. Government controls the currency.Man's free will has some unfortunate side effects and some members of the community will try to take shortcuts to become more prosperous by taking the property or currency of others as well as committing other inconsiderate acts. Government provides the structure for policing these actions and enforces punishment for violations.I could go on with other examples, but lets start with these two. Do you think either of these two issues could be resolved without a government? If so,please explain that. It is likely that what you will describe will in fact be a form of government.What I am getting is that I think we can agree that some form of government has to exist for a civilization to thrive. Next is the issue of tax. I hope we can agree that government costs money and that it is not realistic to get that money unless there is a regulated method of collecting it.As these communities grow, there are some gains and losses. One year the crops might be great, the next year not so much. Not all the harvesters are needed at harvest time. Some people will run out of currency because of bad luck. Some others may run out because they are not doing anything valuable to the community. The perceived value of some jobs versus others and the inclination by some to save and others to spend will result in some large disparities in the distribution of currency. There will be some people in the community who cannot afford the cost of living in the community. You basically have three choices about what to do with these members of the community - drive them out, let them starve or take care of them. Yes, morality enters here and I presume the best choice is to take care of them. How should this be done? I really see the government as the only logical choice. The people are driven by rewards - they perform work to gain currency. There is no profit in providing for others. Yes, there are some exceptions, but not enough.This government thing is starting to sound expensive; maybe we better rethink that anarchy alternative... OK, anarchy is a bad idea. Well then, since I have to pay for government, I want more currency for the work I do. If you followed me this far, I am probably about to lose you - I think our compensation does include enough to pay for government to help those in need. If you don't believe that, then there is a problem with believing the private sector will take care of those in need.My problem is not with the government providing those services or using my money to do it. I am on board with that. What I don't like is that they do it in a very inefficient manner.That was the long answer. the short answer is the emotional one - nothing else works and I don't want kids to starve in an experiment to prove that. If we don't force people to chip in to pay for food and shelter for those who don't have it, we won't provide for nearly as many of them. Yes, there are a bunch of lazy layabouts that will get some of it also. I don't have an answer for that, but taking it out of the government's hands would not change that.One of the reasons that this gets emotional is that if you have the opinion (as I do) that there will not be enough help provided if the contributions are not mandatory, then it is easy to infer that people who don't want it this way are willing to let the needy starve. However, I try to keep in mind that not everyone is of that opinion.
Is this question about federal, state, or local government or all of the above?
You found one of my conservative hot buttons - government redundancy! >:(Education is a big one. For the most part, counties (often with state and/or federal help) provide K-12 education, states provide colleges and the federal government supplies a ridiculous bureaucracy. There should be some national standards, but I think they should be set by bills in congress where we supposedly have a voice. If most of the money isn't spent on school buildings, buses, teachers and materials that are used in the classroom, then we are doing something very wrong.
My $0.02 (based on a lesson from my classes) is that government does (or should do) things that the individual cannot or will not do for themselves. Simply put we all can't take time from earning our living to guard our houses, help maintain the roads and bridges, put our forest fires, or run off to Iraq to help them sort their sh*t and form a government… so we pay taxes that pay for people that are hired to do all those jobs.Society has gotten far too complex for us to handle all the small things (or very large ones) that need addressed for the country to function. Sadly the government has "run with the ball" in the sense that as long as they are doing some things they seem to think they need to do more since we seem to like it when theydo the heavy lifting. They forget we still pay the bills. But do we? FDR needed to put folks to work and did so... according to the old joke, hwne he was asked how they'd be paid (since the gov't was out of $ too) he said: "We are the Government, we'll print more." State and local gov't can't do this so the Feds give them handouts (always with a hook) and the beat goes on.In my experience most folks don't gripe about paying their fair share but they do take exception when their taxes are wasted or their fair share keeps growing while others pay nothing and get benefits.
OK, here goes.I am not advocating anarchy nor do I advocate that we let people starve or freeze to death. However, that being said we have to moderate the role of government or we will in fact be in a Big Brother type situation. The danger is that a sector of society gets so dependent on government that they are unable to survive if that support is withdrawn. Of course, there are always going to be people who are actually incapable of supporting themselves. But isn?t that what family is for? Another problem is that government has arrogate to itself the responsibility to of doing things that the traditional family unit did, that is a sad thing and in my opinion a symptom of overall societal decline.In my view, the role of government, any government be it federal state or local is to provide police and fire protection and ensure that the marketplace is fair while being minimally intrusive in the affairs of private individuals or business. The role of the government can also be separated into three spheres in the US. What the different levels of government are responsible for federal state and local. I will expound on all three. I will guess that my views are kind of a mish mash of John Birch, The founders, Libertarians, and republican. Of course as well, all my views are purely subjective.I will start with federal. The federal government has responsibilities that deal only with issues that are specifically national in character. The basics as I see it in order of importance are 1. National Defense, 2. Relations with foreign governments, 3. Regulating the money supply, 4. Regulating interstate commerce, and 5. Regulating activities on federally held land. I will explain each one in depth.1. National Defense. It is almost a given that the Federal government must maintain armed forces whose purpose is defending national sovereignty. This is one of those basic responsibilities without which our nation would not be capable of existing as without a military any predator nation would quickly scoop us up and add us to their government whatever that may be.2. Relations with foreign governments. This is also a basic responsibility of the federal government. As a nation we must speak to foreign governments with one voice and it is self evident that the entity most suited to do that is the Federal government. We cannot have fifty states with fifty different voices; we must present a united front to both allies and particularly enemies.3. Regulating the money supply. This is not as obviously a federal responsibility. However, I think it only makes sense to have one common currency to simplify transactions between the states and for international trade as well. There are a couple of caveats to that as well. I think there should be something similar to a gold standard to maintain the value of money at a more stable rate than the current floating currency system does. Living overseas and seeing the value of the dollar fluctuate makes me acutely aware of how valuable a stable currency can be.4. Regulating interstate commerce. This one is also obvious. The feds should be responsible for regulating trade between the states. I would interpret this very strictly though to include only actual trade transactions in which money changes hands. The commerce clause is so abused that I don?t even think the founder would recognize it. I also do not think they meant for it to be used as a massive loophole for federal intrusion into the lives of average citizens that it has become. I think regulating interstate trade has to do with eliminating tolls and ensuring that all trade between states occurs on a fair basis.5. Regulating activities on federally held land. It is obvious that the federal government will own land for offices, military installations and the like. The federal government should have the same rights as any other property owner. They should not be able to make up the rules as they go along though. The states are quite simple; they fulfill the same role as the federal government within their state. The states are restricted to strictly state issues. The caveat is that the states must abide by federal laws where applicable but only if those laws do not infringe on the rights of the state to govern the citizens of that state. What I am mainly talking about here is trade. It is also obvious that if trade occurs entirely within a state then the federal government has no role in that transaction. For example, if I own a business in Tulsa, OK and sell something to a business in Oklahoma City, Ok. I then put my wares on a truck to OKC that will not leave the state then I am clearly not engaging in interstate commerce but rather intrastate commerce. The federal government would have no oversight or regulatory authority on that transaction, which responsibility instead falls to the state.The next level is local. It is my view that this level of government is the one on which the average person should have the most contact with and should also affect them the most. Local government should be responsible for the following things which I will expand on. 1. Education, 2, Public safety, 3 Most infrastructure (this is debatable though), and 4. Regulating local commerce.1. Education. This one gets me fired up. To me education is a strictly local responsibility and should be left to local government. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to mandate anything with regards to education. If you don?t believe me look at what has become of America?s schools since the founding of the department of education in 1980. What was once collectively the best education system in the world has become steadily second rate. We did just fine before the feds got involved and started bribing the states with federal education dollars. They have foisted travesties on us like NCLB and other mandated classes and curricula. I trust my fellow community members to devise a curriculum much more than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington. AT least if my local school board screws it up I have the opportunity to confront them and even get rid of them. I have no such influence over the idiots at the Department of Education who are pushing their own agenda in opposition to what I and my fellow parents want.2. Public safety. Who is better positioned to look for my safety and that of my property; the federal government or my local police department composed of members of my community? I am not saying get rid of federal law enforcement, I am saying restrict their power and authority to strictly federal issues. General public safety is a local issue and should be handled at the local level. Here again the federal government needs to get out of the way and stop bribing local departments to get them to meet federal objectives that may be at odds with what the local community wants.3. Most infrastructure. Here I am of two minds. On one hand I can see a federal role in this, especially as regards interstate highways, canals, and railroads. On the other hand, I think that state and local government is better equipped to handle this because for the most part roads are local concerns. The debatable part is where utilities come in. I don?t necessarily think that state and local government should control utilities but I think they need to be well regulated. Utilities are one of those grey areas where businessmen should not be able to just jack prices whenever they want. In most places utilities are virtual monopolies and thus I think they should be regulated. This is where that fairness piece comes in.4. Regulating local commerce. To me obviously a local responsibility for the same reasons as I stated above about intrastate commerce.Lastly, this brings us to how to finance the government. As you can tell from above, I am in favor of a small and minimally intrusive federal government. It is actually similar to what existed in the US at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. That federal government was financed by customs duties and tariffs, and fees for government services. It also did not have an income tax, it was not needed.I am opposed to income taxes on principal. I do not see by what right the federal or any other government has to the sweat of mina anybody else?s brow. If it is for protection and maintenance of civil society, is that not their purpose? I think government can and should be financed at the state and local level by service fees and commerce taxes. I am talking about consumption taxes here. I specifically reject the notion of property taxes. I don?t see why I had should have to pay the government for the privilege of owning something I paid for and they only fulfill their purpose in maintaining conditions of law and order. By the same token, I don?t think government should be able to tell what I can and can?t put on my land either. The emphasis in that statement is it is MY land. I envision property ownership as being a little bit like sovereignty and no I am not one of those sovereign citizen types. I just think it is a travesty that government and even neighbors think they should have a vote about what I do with MY land.As you can see, the minimal government I envision would require minimally burdensome taxes thus eliminating much of the argument about government today.I haven?t touched on welfare because I reject the notion that government and by extension me has a mandated responsibility to take care of someone cradle to grave. That speaks to family, it is what family is for and if someone does not have such a family maybe they should work to make it so. They certainly should not come to me demanding the fruit of my labor so that they can live. I give to charity out of the goodness of my heart, not because I am impelled to do so by tax law. Support for the indigent is just that, charity, and it should stay that way. The federal government has created a self sustaining monster with their various support programs. Welfare eliminates incentives to work, much like endless unemployment benefits do for those that have been laid off from their job. I sympathize with them and give to charity but I don?t feel personally responsible for their plight and neither should anybody else.
Scout,Wow - very thorough. On the welfare issue, I would have to remind you that not everyone has family, and that sometimes entire families need help. In fact, traditional families with a single breadwinner and a stay at home parent often have the smallest cash reserves (in terms of how long they can stay afloat if the money quits coming in) and are a big financial burden to expect another relative to take on.While I think the government should do more than you do, I do think they should do each thing only once - locally, at the state level, or at the national level. I am not as big on states rights as it appears you are. This business of legalizing something in one state and not others seems to fly in the face of national unity. How can we speak to other nations with one voice if we aren't sure what to say? Do we want Mexico to stamp out pot farming, or make sure it is "medical grade" ::) before it is shipped to California and Colorado? Not that it matters, but I think they should go ahead and legalize and tax that; we waste a lot of money fighting it and make criminals out of people who aren't trying to hurt or steal from others. I also don't think the poorest states should have to make do on the meager taxes they can collect.I saw a different side of education in the 70s. My parents paid for me to go to a city high school when we lived outside the city limits because the county schools where we lived (Whitfield Co, GA) were so bad. A graduate from the local high school was refused entry into the military because he was functionally illiterate. Some localities just won't get the job done without oversight. The DOE is overkill, though.I am sort of with you on the "my land" ideas with a few caveats... You can't go creating an environmental disaster. Communities that set covenants when they are developed and don't change them have a right to expect people who buy a home their to abide by them.You can't break the law and it is reasonable for law enforcement to want to look around if there is a reason to suspect that you are.As far as taxes, I have a high income, but I support the idea of income tax. I think it should be true flat rate with very few exemptions, though. Wealth distribution is way out of balance and has only gotten worse. If you even the load of cost across the board, there are too many people who just can't afford it. I support income tax not because it is fair, because it isn't. I support it because it is practical. I support taxing land holdings for the same reason.The reason that so many of my liberal brethren get really emotional about social programs is that they think unbridled compassion makes us better than those who place limits on it. It doesn't; it makes us different but not necessarily better. We're worthless in battle and sometimes battle is necessary. Sharing food with a less prepared hungry person when you barely have enough is neither practical nor logical. Some of us are wired that way though. Darwinism tells us we are living on borrowed time behaving this way, but what feels right isn't changed by cold logic.
I still don?t buy it that welfare is a good use of tax dollars. I can see your argument for practicality. Unfortunately, that is not how the system is set up. It was envisioned as a safety net, not a way of life. I am not even averse to reforming the system but I would go after it with a broad sword instead of a scalpel. We do not help people by coddling them.I guess I can?t really speak to education in the 70?s my parents put my three brothers and I through private Catholic schools. I can however speak for the horrible state of education in public schools today. My son went to a public school in Texas that was supposed to be one of the better districts and if that was good I don?t want to see what bad looks like. A pretty campus does not mean a substantive education.As far as drugs go, I lean towards legalization but at the same time if we go that route then those that choose to use drugs should not be a burden on tax payers if they get sick or can?t find a job. I would even go so far as to mandate drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare or social benefits, to include health care. I don?t see why people should have to pay for rehab for druggies, if you make stupid decisions you should have to live with the consequences.My position on land law will not change. I know a guy that put a stock pond in on his ranch about 15 years ago. Last year he wanted to fill it in and turn that pasture into grain land. He was not allowed because his artificial stock pond was now deemed to be a federally protected wetland because some ducks occasionally stopped on it during their seasonal migrations. That is the kind of stupidity I object to.
The reason that so many of my liberal brethren get really emotional about social programs is that they think unbridled compassion makes us better than those who place limits on it. It doesn't; it makes us different but not necessarily better. We're worthless in battle and sometimes battle is necessary. Sharing food with a less prepared hungry person when you barely have enough is neither practical nor logical. Some of us are wired that way though. Darwinism tells us we are living on borrowed time behaving this way, but what feels right isn't changed by cold logic.
I have problems with the whole making laws on emotion thing. The law is not about emotion, or at least I don?t think it should be. Practicality perhaps, but emotion never.
OK, here goes.I am not advocating anarchy nor do I advocate that we let people starve or freeze to death. However.... The states....The next level is local. .... Local government should be responsible for the following things which I will expand on. 1. Education....1. Education. This one gets me fired up. To me education is a strictly local responsibility and should be left to local government. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to mandate anything with regards to education. If you don?t believe me look at what has become of America?s schools since the founding of the department of education in 1980. What was once collectively the best education system in the world has become steadily second rate. We did just fine before the feds got involved and started bribing the states with federal education dollars. They have foisted travesties on us like NCLB and other mandated classes and curricula. I trust my fellow community members to devise a curriculum much more than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington. AT least if my local school board screws it up I have the opportunity to confront them and even get rid of them. I have no such influence over the idiots at the Department of Education who are pushing their own agenda in opposition to what I and my fellow parents want.....
Excellent; on the education issue think of the centralized agricultural planning of the old USSR in the 40's and 50's... same kind of attitude and results!Great post.
