Upcoming Tax Rebates

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Awgee, do you think that in this day and age <strong>ALL</strong> of the constitution should still hold? I know it's historic and tied to the birth of this nation and all. But the founding fathers were dealing with many different issues and circumstances. Just wondering.
 
Mino, it was not my intention to take your comment out of context. It was merely a rhetorical question, my reactionary reaction to your reactionary comment. It bugs me when someone blindly drinks Grover Norquist's "all government is bad" kool-aid.



Most of my colleagues and many of my friends are conservative, and I have had endless discussions and debates regarding liberal and conservative economics and government. I have yet to "convert" in any serious way any conservative to my way of thinking. So I have no illusions about converting you or anyone on this board. But in the spirit of Fox News and "fair and balanced" reporting, I will try to give you the progressive perspective.



First the unaccounted for 24 billion dollars. I don't know where that number comes from but it is a drop in the bucket in our 3 trillion dollar budget. Even if that number was accurate, some of the money could have been spent on worthwhile endeavors. Perhaps there was poor accounting or whatever. I don't want my tax money going to waste any more than you do, but if you believe all private corporation is completely efficient you are naive. The tan man taking a quarter of the current value of Countrywide seems like a huge waste to me.



Sure there are a million different gov agencies and I am sure there are redundancies and inefficiencies. Let's take the 90 different early childhood programs. So what? each of the program may be providing a much needed and appropriate service to our society. I know many folks who have received government aid and have been greatly helped by it. Many of these people have gone onto becoming productive and very successful members of society. I think the government can and should try to improve the live of it's citizens.



"It is proven that many govt programs have failed and will continue to do so."



Of course this is a true statement but I don't get your point. There are many successful gov programs as well. There are many failed private enterprises and projects.



"Why not give the money to the ppl and let them decide how to use it."



We can take your share of the money that we spend on children's health care and give it to you. And you may very well use that money appropriately to help the kids who need it. Then again you may just as easily turn around and go buy a lottery ticket. If not for payroll deduction of SS tax, how many people would actually save that money for retirement. I know many of us would but there would be millions who would not. Who knows what might happen 30 yrs from now, but overall I think social security has been a successful program. The government can do a better job than the private sector at many things.



I am realistic, I know we will never achieve utopia, and communism has been an abject failure. But current bent of government has benefited corporations and the wealthy few at the expense of the middle and lower classes. I don't think it's unreasonable to pull the reins in a bit and try a more populist bent. I see western Europe as nice balance. I understand that our country would not operate at peak efficiency but I think it is a fair trade-off for more robust safety net and a more supportive society.



As far a fair tax goes, it was cooked up by a bunch of Texas businessmen and is supported primarily by the republicans. To the best of my understanding (which is limited for sure), it seems like a scheme to enrich the super wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
 
green_cactus - Thank you for asking.<p>


<i>"Awgee, do you think that in this day and age ALL of the constitution should still hold? I know it's historic and tied to the birth of this nation and all. But the founding fathers were dealing with many different issues and circumstances. Just wondering."</i><p>


Yes and I can not be more emphatic. <b>YES!</b><p>


Especially the portion which describes how to ammend The Constitution, instead of making an end run around it. Presently those with the most power can inflict their will upon the weaker or less populous with the excuse that The Constitution is no longer relevant to a complicated society as we have now. If that is true, change it. Change it legally.<p>


The one thing that has not changed and will never change is that a country governed by law and principle instead of mob rule or power rule is a country designed and destined to be free.
 
<em>"But in the spirit of Fox News and "fair and balanced" reporting" </em>you mean as in totally conservative skewed, deceiving and Giuliani supporting??? Please, let's not use "fair and balanced" and FOX in the same sentence again.
 
" "But in the spirit of Fox News and "fair and balanced" reporting" you mean as in totally conservative skewed, deceiving and Giuliani supporting??? Please, let's not use "fair and balanced" and FOX in the same sentence again."



Sigh...But, alas, nuance is lost on the young.
 
Awgee said, <em>I will make it distinct for you. Anything the Constitution specifically calls for government responsibility is a government responsibility. Anything not mentioned in the Constitution is not to be interferred with by the government.</em>





That is not distinct. People smarter than us debate what exactly is a govt responsibility. For example, the constitution says:


<em>Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States


</em>That whole "general welfare" can be, and has been, interpreted very differently by different people.





However, we got here because you asked<em> <em>Do rich people use more government services?</em></em><em></em> I tried to list many things that the govt provides that benefit the "rich" more than the poor. You then claimed that the govt is not needed for these things and that I must be stupid to think so. Notice that you did <strong>not</strong> counter my claim that the govt currently provides these services. So, it would seem that the answer to your question is Yes, the rich <strong>do</strong> use more government services. You may not want the govt to provide them, but they do.





Furthermore, we agree that the military is okay for the govt to run. As has been asserted by a couple of us, the military helps the rich more than the poor. You've never offered any contradiction to this.





You included the USPS in the list of govt groups that get in the way and steal from the poor. Yet, mail service is enumerated in the Constitution (again in Section 8: <em>To establish post offices and post roads</em>). So, I'm now confused by what you want.








<em>If it is not profitable, then no one wants it bad enough and it is unnecessary.</em> Wow, that is extreme. So, your contention is that the only things that are necessary are those things which are monitarily profitable? I hope you don't have children, man! Children are not profitable. And, I guess all the non-profit groups out there are unnecessary even though people seem to want them. Hey, is the military profitable?








<em> It will probably take you a few years of real world to unlearn all the nonsense they teach in grad school.


</em>Yeah, I'm over 40. I've had more than a <strong>few</strong> years of the real world. I've been working since before I was 16. However, I don't think grad school in computer science is something that affected my views on politics, other than making me alarmed that people actually trust closed-source computer software for voting machines.








Anyway, we should probably just agree to disagree as we are just wasting time at this point.
 
OCPOP....first I want to say I love debate and constructive forums like this so I hope whatever difference of opinion we have it does not turn into name calling and so forth....same goes with Green Cactus. I like exchange ideas and opinions and this only helps me exercise my mind...doing 300lbs bench presses right now.



OCPOP says...."

First the unaccounted for 24 billion dollars. I don't know where that number comes from but it is a drop in the bucket in our 3 trillion dollar budget. Even if that number was accurate, some of the money could have been spent on worthwhile endeavors. Perhaps there was poor accounting or whatever. I don't want my tax money going to waste any more than you do, but if you believe all private corporation is completely efficient you are naive. The tan man taking a quarter of the current value of Countrywide seems like a huge waste to me."



Reading this comment in a sense kind of makes me mad. You go on in another paragraph saying how redundant programs help out the less unforunate and even though we loose this much money it's not a big deal. Now I don't know all the States GDPs but I would assume loosing 24B is more and a quarter of many states GDP. So for you to passively dismiss this as being a drop in the bucket is absurd!!! It goes to show that no party is fiscally conservative. Could you imagine if you were a shareholder in a company and they reported in their 10K that they magically lost 24MM? How would the markets act? As tax payers we are no more than shareholders in the US govt and we expect them to use and spend our money wisely....period.



It scares me that OCPOP and Green Cactus expect the govt to take care of everyone. My take is our govt is setup to take care of the minimal needs a person must have to live. It does not mean to redistribute income, provide income, or for that matter ensure that they live a comfortable life. Govt's only responsibility is to meet a minimal strd of living and provide protection.
 
Well mino, for tonight I'll leave you with this so you can have some nice dreams about government spending and <em>redistribution of wealth</em> - as you like to call it.





<img src="http://www.gop.com/images/BarackObameter.jpg" alt="" />
 
<p><em>"Notice that you did <strong>not</strong> counter my claim that the govt currently provides these services. So, it would seem that the answer to your question is Yes"</em></p>

<p><em>"You included the USPS in the list of govt groups that get in the way and steal from the poor. Yet, mail service is enumerated in the Constitution (again in Section 8: <em>To establish post offices and post roads</em>). So, I'm now confused by what you want."</em></p>

<p>If I do not respond to each and every one of your assertions, it is indicative of my agreement? Huh?</p>

<p>I included the USPS? Or if I fail to address each and every one of your acronyms, then I am being inclusive?</p>

<p><em>"<em>If it is not profitable, then no one wants it bad enough and it is unnecessary.</em> Wow, that is extreme. So, your contention is that the only things that are necessary are those things which are monitarily profitable? I hope you don't have children, man! Children are not profitable."</em></p>

<p>Children? I thought we were speaking of government provided goods and services.</p>

<p>I truly am at a loss. I give up. I do not agree to disagree. I do not have the ability to communicate at this level. I just give up.</p>
 
<em>If I do not respond to each and every one of your assertions, it is indicative of my agreement?</em>


But this was about my <strong>first</strong> assertion. It was my first response to your question. It was the main point of my reply to your question. You took the time to reply to me. However, instead of saying anything about the main point, you picked on some little point in my message. When I give you evidence to support something, you shift the topic. In other words, every time I give you an answer, you change the question because you do not like the answer. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance</a>





Did you ever see the news commentator that Kevin Nealon did a couple times on SNL where he kept changing what his point was?
 
"It scares me that OCPOP and Green Cactus expect the govt to take care of everyone."



Great, I like instilling fear in people. As I tell my thirteen children every chance I get, I'd rather be feared than loved. Just the other day I told the youngest one that if he doesn't toe the line I'm kicking him and his sorry high chair out of our three bedroom house that we share with two other families. And he can take his monthly $300 welfare check with him.



Seriously, as I have said before, I am not a communist, and I don't have delusions of utopia. I work hard for my money and I want to keep as much as I can. I have no problem with wealth or the wealthy. What I do have a problem with is when the system is rigged to benefit the few at the expense of the majority. Take for instance the estate tax. Let's leave aside whether you think it is a morally or fiscally appropriate or not. Repealing the tax, really benefits very few people. But these few people got almost the entire republican party to get up in arms about a complete repeal. In a revenue neutral scenario, that money that doesn't get collected by estate tax comes out of the rank and file of the republican and democratic party. In other words, majority of the politicians were working at the behest of the very few. And this kind of crap happens every single day. I think it's reasonable to try and change our government to a more responsive, more populist institution. If that happens, I think our country will become a more economically liberal place. That means, as you said, to provide the minimal needs of it's citizen. To me that means food and shelter(not necessarily a Newport Coast address), universal health care, decent public education, and reasonable childcare. In my mind we have more than enough wealth and resources as a country to provide for these things.
 
<em>"Furthermore, we agree that the military is okay for the govt to run. As has been asserted by a couple of us, the military helps the rich more than the poor. You've never offered any contradiction to this".





</em>I'm thinking that the US Military has provided millions of jobs for many of the nation's poor. I'm certain this fact far outweighs the occasional rich Bush or Clinton that buys off their service time.
 
<p>Yeah, but what is the military protecting? It is protecting all the wealth and providing stability so people can make more wealth. Again, I'm not talking about only direct money being paid from the government to your bank account. In fact, I would say that the "poor" get a higher percentage of their smaller absolute dollar benefit that way. The rich get little/no money directly paid to them by the government. They benefit from everything else the government does that allows them to stay rich and get richer.</p>
 
<p>Conservatives want organizations to handle all the services that the government currently does. Well, there already is an organization that handles the services. And, you get some say in who sits on the board of directors. You also get some say in who the CEO is. This organization has many offices and subsidiaries. The voters in the republic of the USA have decided to give it the power to collect its fees from all those who live in the country in order to provide for the greater good of the country. This organization is known as the government.</p>

<p>It is very convenient. Rather than you writing out an extra 50 checks each month, each to a separate organization, you just write one check. This avoids the duplication of effort that would go into having each organization having its own rules on accounting and such. [See the health insurance industry for an example of why would be a problem.] Rather than having to try to figure out which of the 100s of organizations you need to support, analyze, and vet, you only have one. And, because it is the government, it has to be more open with its information than any private organization.</p>

<p>Do people complain about it? Yes. Is it perfect? No. But, I find I get more annoyed by my cell phone company and my cable company more than I do by the government. YMMV.</p>
 
<p>mino wrote:</p>

<p><em>"look at all the duplicated programs our govt funds...342 Economic Development Programs, 130 Disabled Programs, 90 Early Childhood Programs, 72 Safe Water Programs...etc."</em></p>

<p>Are you saying there is no duplication of programs in the private sector? How many groups are there that are focused on the environment? How many are focused on helping the poor? How many housing blog sites do we really need, for crying out loud? </p>
 
<p>Trooper - I would argue that the troops in Iraq are not protecting my freedom. Saddam attacked Iran (with our help) and was kicked out of Kuwait. What other countries did he invade? I don't remember him putting this country in danger of invasion.</p>

<p>But, for the sake of argument, let's say they are protecting our freedom. Who would have more to lose by this country being invaded by someone -- the rich or the poor? The rich would lose most of what they have. The poor would just stay poor.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>T!m, awgee, </p>

<p>Both of you are arguing right past the problem, as I see it: The problem isn't defense spending or funding of the various alphabet soup agencies... the problem is that by and large social service programs that give people money based on income-level are a waste of time and money....our money. That these "prebates" are targeted to a specific economic class because they will spend it indicts the entire scheme that welfare proponents and poverty warriors have been bellowing about for the last 70 years. The government is counting on lower income people to spend the money to stimulate the economy, but people like Troop get nothing. If they are so certain of the result, why are we still shelling out billions every year on programs to help people that are only going to blow the money?</p>

<p>I'm all for standardized meat safety and consistent nation air traffic safety, and a comprehensive road network, and regulation of banking, etc. There are some things that a nation this large and domestically mobile need to have done in a uniform way. But when the elected officials tell me they are giving away money to people to act as a "hand up, not a hand out" and justify it by saying things like "share the wealth of this great nation" or some other platitude, don't expect me to believe it. They have freely admitted, both Democrats and Republicans, that the money they are giving away does nothing more than get spent immediately. It doesn't end poverty, it encourages it, it rewards doing nothing to improve your personal situation. Worse still, the Senate was holding out for more money to give away, with zero regard for how we are going to pay for it.</p>

<p>Looking at the budget numbers from the CBO, I strongly suspect that we could do a lot more with a lot less if we weren't trying to redistribute wealth and actually focused on holding people accountable for making a change.</p>
 
<em>"They have freely admitted, both Democrats and Republicans, that the money they are giving away does nothing more than get spent immediately."</em> And if you end up working for a company that benefits from this spending, your job benefit from this as well - or the stock you are holding, or the some connection to it. What would the economic impact be if we were to cut all these "hand outs"? Not justifying, just wondering ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top