The new Bennetton GOP (?)

[ryberg]

I agree with Jacko's comments there, at least for the most part.

The goal of as little government as possible reflects a certain myopia, however. Go back and watch John Adams, for example, and marvel at the founders of the country in dramatized form argue about what the nature of the government should rightly be, but not take some knee-jerk view that government itself (or government apart from maintaining an army for common defense) is simply bad, end of story, and thus should be made as small and ineffective as possible. The is an opinion, not any sort of obvious or objective truth. The conservatives who advocate it at every turn, as if it were, bear little resemblance to those founders and their views, in many respects, even as they hail them. Like most such oversimplified talk, Ronald Reagan's dictum that government itself is the problem cannot deal with the many different aspects of reality in all its grey-shaded glory.

Perhaps that helps explain why hose who call themselves conservatives today trumpet it so much?

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by roni

I would gently suggest that the fiscal irresponsibility practiced during the past 28 years is partly responsible for the current state of affairs. We heard mostly cheers for that fiscal insanity from the Republican party.

You are absolutely correct on the first point, but there were a number of voices, mainly Republican as opposed to Democrat, that sought to cut spending as well, their voices were drowned out.

Those policies were about shifting the burden from the relatively better off to the relatively less well off. Or, perhaps a Sheriff of Nottingham type of income redistribution

Your last point is factually incorrect; the relatively better-off pay a higher percentage of the income tax collected now than they did 30 years ago, you could look it up.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I agree with Jacko's comments there, at least for the most part.

The goal of as little government as possible reflects a certain myopia, however. Go back and watch John Adams, for example, and marvel at the founders of the country in dramatized form argue about what the nature of the government should rightly be, but not take some knee-jerk view that government itself (or government apart from maintaining an army for common defense) is simply bad, end of story, and thus should be made as small and ineffective as possible.

I don't know anybody wishing the government to be as ineffective as possible, most of the folks I talk to want just the opposite; nor do I hear anyone saying government itself is bad, it is rather the implementation as currently practiced that is all wrong.

The is an opinion, not any sort of obvious or objective truth. The conservatives who advocate it at every turn, as if it were, bear little resemblance to those founders and their views, in many respects, even as they hail them. Like most such oversimplified talk, Ronald Reagan's dictum that government itself is the problem cannot deal with the many different aspects of reality in all its grey-shaded glory.

You missed the shade of gray in Reagan's comments, and as such fail to understand his point.

Perhaps that helps explain why hose who call themselves conservatives today trumpet it so much?

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

I disagree, there are some for whom there is never enough government, most of them gravitate towards the capitol regions of the several states and this country.



How could a return of my money be considered "freeloading"? The leaders in DC want it both ways, provide tax breaks without the concomitant spending cuts, that is indeed reckless, but does not constitute "freeloading" by the persons paying the tax bill, as the government still chooses to keep quite a bit of our money, tax reductions notwithstanding. I can see your point if you talk about people who receive "refunds" even if they paid no income taxes, but isn't that being a little harsh?

I imagine many have supported the tax reductions in hopes that their elected officials would do the right thing and cut spending as well, but alas, our feckless leaders have failed to do so. It does make sense, however, to blame the taxpayer for this failure of nerve on the part of Congress, rather than Congress itself, is that your point?

I'm not sure to whom you are referring, but most people I know don't object to paying taxes for those programs that they feel are in the rightful sphere of the federal or state/local government, respectively. What sense does it make to take a dollar in tax paid in a town in NY, send it to DC to have it routed through the federal bureaucracy, to be returned to the State of NY where it gets distribute to the town from whence it came, all the while the "middlemen" involved in the process taking a cut? Those things that make sense to address at a federal level should be done that way, others issues should be addressed at the state/local level accordingly. The reason why the system breaks down, in part, is because the federal government doesn't get smaller, and it thus starves the states of the monies they can raise.

But of course, we HAVE already made our choices of what is the "rightful sphere" of government, haven't we? You just don't agree.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

What you say is true, but we also have the responsibility to ensure that we do so wisely; that seems to be the bone of contention here. We should not, merely because we have numbers on our side, allow a class of people to take monies from others just because we can; imagine if that notion spread to other areas of behavior?

Imagine if we had no ability to systematically collect taxes and fund the many projects where government has served us so well over the years....and yet, thankfully, we have agreed to this for our common good......I submit, we don't do this "just because we can" or because we particularly like parting with our money......we do this because "numbers of people" have made a common decision to do so in our common interests...we don't get to make individual decisions on these things....if we did...well, we might have the same mess our current health care "system" is in.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

But of course, we HAVE already made our choices of what is the "rightful sphere" of government, haven't we? You just don't agree.

You're right, and those choices we've made, collectively, are a major reason why we are faced with the problems we have now. It's a little bit more than me not agreeing with the choices, the fact that we face the circumstances we do now is prima facie evidence that the choices were wrong, at least in part. In order to solve the problems, we need to make better choices going forward.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

You're right, and those choices we've made, collectively, are a major reason why we are faced with the problems we have now. It's a little bit more than me not agreeing with the choices, the fact that we face the circumstances we do now is prima facie evidence that the choices were wrong, at least in part. In order to solve the problems, we need to make better choices going forward.

Well, I agree that government has not been working as well as it should be and we need to have some more change we can believe in..that is what we recently voted upon....lets see how it goes.....perhaps we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet....I do understand the temptation....

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Imagine if we had no ability to systematically collect taxes and fund the many projects where government has served us so well over the years....and yet, thankfully, we have agreed to this for our common good......I submit, we don't do this "just because we can" or because we particularly like parting with our money......we do this because "numbers of people" have made a common decision to do so in our common interests...we don't get to make individual decisions on these things....if we did...well, we might have the same mess our current health care "system" is in.

My concern is that we will come to believe we can add an increasingly larger tax burden on an ever decreasing subset of our population and get away with it for much longer; that is the implicit message of the theme "only the richest X% of the people will see a tax increase".

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

My concern is that we will come to believe we can add an increasingly larger tax burden on an ever decreasing subset of our population and get away with it for much longer; that is the implicit message of the theme "only the richest X% of the people will see a tax increase".

What we need to do is work on more efficiently delivering needed services to the people....we need better government, more concerned and involved individuals and a less greedy, short-sighted business community all working better together to accomplish this. We need all of this...the problems are quite large.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Well, I agree that government has not been working as well as it should be and we need to have some more change we can believe in..that is what we recently voted upon....lets see how it goes.....perhaps we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet....I do understand the temptation....

There are no changes planned in any of the efforts we see going forward, it is more federally sanctioned spending of money we don't have, money that we will ask our grandchildren to pay back. The plans proposed so far in this administration, and the previous promises made by Obama as a candidate, differ nary a wit from those of the previous two administrations in terms of the overall effect on this country's economic well-being.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

There are no changes planned in any of the efforts we see going forward, it is more federally sanctioned spending of money we don't have, money that we will ask our grandchildren to pay back. The plans proposed so far in this administration, and the previous promises made by Obama as a candidate, differ nary a wit from those of the previous two administrations in terms of the overall effect on this country's economic well-being.

I dunno...the plans feel somewhat larger and the problems just a teeny weeny bit larger as well...but maybe that is just me....

[ryberg]

The thing about that my money routine -- and this is a great example of that myopia that has developed in many folks, including apparently a lot of conservatives out there, despite its clash with the views of those who founded the country -- is that it paints as obvious, black-and-white, all-or-nothing a matter that is nothing of the sort.

You're born in the United States, a country governed by the people, a democracy in the regular and accepted sense of the word, in English (despite what scary popagandic YouTube videos might try to tell you!), you benefit from the educational system, health care, police protection, infrastructure, defense, and so on. You are a part of the society. A society whose government has to be paid for by its people, the people who've benefitted from it, who have a democratic voice in how it's run, whose ancestors likewise received its benefits, or whose children will, or whose friends and neighbors do, or all of the above.

In this situation, naturally you can argue about how money should be raised and spent by the government, or how much, but there is no logic in the flat assumption that all the money you earn is yours, period, or in insisting on referring to any and all money paid by you to the government in taxes as your money, and to build arguments about these issues on that view. To adopt this view is to ignore all the core facts above, as if you and yours had not previously received such benefits and would not in the future, either. As if you were not in fact a citizen of the country and a member of this society, but an island unto yourself.

Imagine belonging to a gym, for example, or a union, maybe, or club or neighborhood you like with housing association dues, that can in various ways be shown to benefit you, and of which you proudly proclaim your membership to others, but which you are unwilling to help fund with any dues, refusing to recognize, even in the manner in which you speak and the language you use, any claim on the part of that entity to any money from you, even while having received such benefits from that entity and continuing to do so.

THAT, you realize, ironically, would precisely amount to freeloading.

And at that point, shouldn't that "Ameica -- love it or leave it!" clause take effect on you?

Steve

[Jacko]

I must say here that I agree with pretty much all ryberg has said there..it just seems so darn reasonable to me........tmc, do you disagree with that?

[ryberg]

Morning, Jacko!

I do in fact see the good point part in complaints from tmc or many others (despite what may be claimed about me!) wrt inefficiency -- or worse -- in government use of its money, which means our collective money. It just seems that that aspect is improperly allowed to take over or become one's entire view of government, in the end. I don't believe many conservatives would really try to argue explicitly that no government -- or no government other than an army for defense, say -- would be the best situation. Yet that view seems to be barely hidden under the surface or just out of sight around the corner so much of the time, when many conservatives debate these topics. Little to no credit is given to the myriad benefits that our government, as silly or illogical as it may be sometimes, brings us each day.

It's as if the view of government is that of a disgruntled spouse who can focus only on faults and problems and adopts the view that his/her life would be better without the other person in the relationship, naively oblivious to all the good parts that are now taken for granted and forgotten, and to all that would be sorely missed, if that person really went away...

Steve

[user 6507]

I don't recall seeing anyone actually argue against paying taxes..or did I miss that? The old adage that the only cetain things in life are death and taxes is true. Paying taxes gives you a right to bitch about how the money is spent. There are all sorts of arguments out there. One could argue that those who don't pay taxes are not members of the club. If I'm not paying union dues and I'm not a member, what right do I have to tell that union how to conduct its business? I agree that society in general is a bit different and the standards are not so cut and dry. I'm not a cruel bastard who is ready to cut someone off from food stamps just because they didn't make enough money to pay taxes. We've tweaked with this tax thing ever since we've been a country. I'm just saying we need to be careful. I believe in help-not handouts. You know...the teach a man to fish thing......