Broadly speaking, the Right believes that your stuff is yours. The Left believes your stuff doesn’t really become your stuff until the government says it is. So the Right sees taxes as a way to pay for necessary government services. The Left sees taxes as an instrument of social control and redistributive justice.
Because it’s what Marxists do. And Barack Obama is a perfect example, when in the debates he said that he’d raise capital gains tax rates, even if it resulted in reduced revenue, out of “fairness.”
“No, just the opposite. Over the next 50 years Social Security is going to grow a little (as the population ages), non-healthcare spending is projected to shrink a bit, and government health care spending will explode until it makes up most of the budget.”
Oh Jim, your parsing and ignorance of logic is truly mind boggling. Obamacare creates whole new departments and extra layers of bureaucracy that will require an increase in budget. The underfunded entitlements have been there and those problems were already issues. The only way Democrats could try to approach spending neutrality was to throw seniors under the bus with massive Medicare cuts and those won’t be enough. Oversight and an excise tax. It’s hard to type, I’m laughing so hard. So guess what we get to keep costs from exploding? Rationing of health care. Don’t you know the way to get less of something is to tax it?
Trent,
>We live in the civilized world. What is civilization? That’s where your
> philosophy of life should start.
>Would you prefer to live in the wild, hunt deer and smelt iron ore for
>horse shoes?
Your statement assumes we have these things and civilization because of government. I strongly question that assumption.
I believe that we have these things because Men specialized and started trading. The ONLY role government should have in this process is the enforcement
of contracts in court. Possibly also enfocement of environmental issues where polution leaves the location where its created.
Obama, one of the presidents who raised tax rates, didn’t lower deficits.
Compared to the policies in place when he took office, he did.
We need long term solutions to lowering deficits.
Agreed, and reining in the growth rate of health care expenses is the place to start. The stuff that the GOP is talking about — e.g. hiring freezes — are pointless distractions compared to health care.
Obamacare creates whole new departments and extra layers of bureaucracy that will require an increase in budget.
“He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.”
The “whole new departments” and “bureaucracy” cost nothing — nothing — in comparison to the cost of the health benefits provided by Medicare. If it took hiring five Pentagon-size buildings full of bureaucrats in order to reduce the rate of Medicare spending growth by 1%, it would be a bargain to do so.
The only way Democrats could try to approach spending neutrality was to throw seniors under the bus with massive Medicare cuts and those won’t be enough.
Those “massive Medicare cuts” eliminate pure waste, extra spending that was not benefitting the program beneficiaries. But that didn’t stop the GOP, the self-styled party of limited government, the party that originally opposed Medicare as the stalking horse of totalitarian socialism, from screaming bloody murder. And you think that same GOP is going to tell seniors — the only age group that favored the GOP in the 2008 presidential election — that they’re going to make real Medicare cuts? Dream on.
Those “massive Medicare cuts” eliminate pure waste, extra spending that was not benefitting the program beneficiaries.
Bulls*it. Doctors are fleeing the program because of cuts in payments.
The question then, Jim, is who’s going to do better? Obama clearly isn’t. The current Democratic Congress isn’t either. Between the two of them, they just made the problem far worse.
Paul, and they could do that because they weren’t spending every day thinking about how they can kill the next guy who tries to take his farm.
Bulls*it. Doctors are fleeing the program because of cuts in payments.
The revenue for ACA came from getting rid of Medicare Advantage, which did not reimburse doctors any more than regular Medicare (it was a handout to insurers who acted as middlemen between the government and the beneficiaries).
Try again.
The question then, Jim, is who’s going to do better? Obama clearly isn’t. The current Democratic Congress isn’t either. Between the two of them, they just made the problem far worse.
On every question of long-term fiscal importance that came before the current Congress, Obama and the Dems were on the side of fiscal responsibility (e.g. reducing growth in health care spending, cutting out Medicare and student loan subsidies to middlemen, attempting to auction carbon emission permits) while the GOP was on the side of spend-and-borrow. If you care about the long-term fiscal health of the country, and are looking at actions rather than words, the Democrats have earned your vote.
Trent,
Yes Law enforcement is a function of government. And the fact that I don’t spend all day guarding my house says that part works.
In my earlier list of functions of government I did include:Courts, I see law enforcement more as a state or city level function, not a federal function. This particular debate has been discussing the overreaching of the federal government, and the federal government has no business in local law enforcement.
“(e.g. reducing growth in health care spending, cutting out Medicare and student loan subsidies to middlemen, attempting to auction carbon emission permits)”
Only one of these actually has a chance at reducing costs. The carbon action and its associated energy cost increases would be devastating. So far, health care costs are going up faster and coverages are being reduced. Great job, Dems!
Try again.
You try again. Fewer doctors is good how?
Lighting turds on fire, blowing the smoke in my face, and telling me it’s for the good really irritates me.
The Left sees taxes as an instrument of social control and redistributive justice.
That’s the topic. As usual, we’ve drifted into the weeds. Should taxes be used to make things ‘fair?’
We lie to ourselves. Consent of the governed is one of those lies. It’s not consent, it’s force. Tax is theft. Always. Can it be justified?
In some limited cases I believe so; the problem is many have no problem going beyond those limits. Speaking of unearned wealth is just one way of rationalization that theft.
The free market is self regulating. It is perhaps one of the few things in life that actually is fair. Where it becomes unfair is when competition is limited. Government actions seldom encourage competition. More often they claim to be encouraging competition while doing exactly the opposite.
Business people may say otherwise, but by action, most are also against competition. They’d all with few exceptions prefer a monopoly of some sort. It’s consumers that benefit from competition.
“All investment involves risk.” So, if I pay a dollar for a lottery ticket and win a million is that unearned? I’m using this extreme example to assert not at all. I made a choice to buy the ticket and making that choice earned me the result.
A boss doesn’t pay his/her employees enough. Is that unearned? Nope. The employees agreed to their pay and can make other choices. The fact is, another boss paying a reasonable labor rate will out compete the boss that doesn’t. The boss that doesn’t will stumble along and is likely to go out of business.
Everything the government ‘fixes’ tends to unfix many more things for others. Bottom line, spending has to be cut. Arguing why or where is a different topic.
ken, as I said, what is law enforcement for if not making the weak equal to the strong? I think “making life fair” is a bit of a stretch but an argument could certainly be made.
The fact is, another boss paying a reasonable labor rate will out compete the boss that doesn’t. The boss that doesn’t will stumble along and is likely to go out of business.
Yes, because the market always functions well and has no flaws, all hail the market.
If the Government does not meddle or strong arm the players in the market then yes..
>Yes, because the market always functions well and has no flaws, all hail >the market.
All of the recent Market mess has been government induced or assisted.
On every question of long-term fiscal importance that came before the current Congress, Obama and the Dems were on the side of fiscal responsibility (e.g. reducing growth in health care spending, cutting out Medicare and student loan subsidies to middlemen, attempting to auction carbon emission permits) while the GOP was on the side of spend-and-borrow. If you care about the long-term fiscal health of the country, and are looking at actions rather than words, the Democrats have earned your vote.
No. Didn’t reduce growth of health care spending, in fact we’re starting to see the opposite effect with double digit growth in some health care plans. Doling out subsidized loans is not education, it is a middle man activity, so the US government hasn’t eliminated the middle man from education, it has merely pushed out a little the other middle men (who can still offer unsubsidized student loans). And auctioning carbon emissions are more economical and somewhat less tyrannical than other means of regulating CO2 output, but it remains that we’d have transitioned from not regulating CO2 to regulating CO2 along with a new revenue stream for government to spend.
Jim, if you’re going to defend Obama, you need examples that support your claims. It’s times like this when I wonder if I’m wasting my time with a GOP shill.
what is law enforcement for if not making the weak equal to the strong?
An interesting perspective considering they work for the strong.
the market always functions well and has no flaws[/sarc]
It self regulates. Something politicians fail to do. Politics actually encourages its flaws. This is why we put both in the same hands as those we call consumers who may hopefully have a positive influence. Economic laws are like gravity… not created by man and good for us.