« Duncan Hines accused of racism | Main | Stunner: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act a Failure »

How Much Is Enough?

Last week, Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) held forth for hours on the floor of the Senate, giving full voice to the leftist ideals of shared sacrifice, shared burdens, shared wealth -- basically, the idea that nothing is yours, but everything is ours. In the midst of his assault on individual rights and individualism, he posed an interesting question: how much money is enough for people to make and keep? At what point is someone "rich enough?"

Interesting thought. Let's turn it around: how much money is enough for the government to take from someone? At what point has someone contributed their "fair share" in taxes, fees, duties, and all those other euphemisms for "the government wants your money."

I have some very devout Christian friends. They tithe to their Church -- 10%. Sometimes it's a struggle for them, but they do their best to live up to what they see as their duty to God.

If God can get by on 10%, why should the government need more? The government just has one country; God has the entire universe. And, it can be argued, has a hell of a lot more responsibility than the government.

(Just don't try to vote Him out of office. It was tried once, and didn't end well.)

Right now, the tax burden is pretty heavily weighted against the wealthy. In 2009, the top 1% of income earners paid 23% of all wages, but paid 40% of taxes. (All numbers rounded for tidiness.) The top 5% took 37% of wages, and paid 61% of taxes. The top 10% paid 71%, the top 25% paid 87%, and the top 50% paid 97% of all taxes.

Which means that the bottom 50% (which decidedly includes me) paid less than 3% of the total tax burden.

The attitude behind the "jack up the taxes on the rich" seems to be "the government needs more money, they have too much, so we'll take it." And there are some fascinating presumptions behind that attitude.

The first thought is that the government needs more money. Well, in one sense, yeah, that's pretty self-evident. They've jacked up spending over and over and over again, and that's gotta be paid for.

But here's a radical alternative: why not simply cut spending? The federal debt has TRIPLED in the last couple of years. What the hell happened that demanded so much more spending? Shouldn't we look first at cutting expenditures? That's what most sane people would do when facing a situation like this.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. We're dealing with progressives and the federal government. "Sane" doesn't really enter into the picture.

Next up, "they have too much." Says who? Who is anyone to say "they have too much?"

Yes, there are such things as "ill-gotten gains." Cases like that need to be investigated and punished. But simply having a lot of money isn't a crime -- or even a sin -- in and of itself. If someone finds a way to make a huge fortune, legally, then good for them. I don't want to live in a nation where "too successful" is a pejorative.

Finally, there's the "let's take it." There's an old truism: "the power to tax is the power to destroy." Taken slightly less literally, it reflects the nature of taxation -- in many cases, it's done as social engineering. Generally speaking, the government subsidizes what it wants to encourage, and taxes what it wishes to discourage. Look at "sin taxes" -- taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, even gasoline are all designed to "encourage" people to use them responsibly.

Other taxes are directly related to services. Gasoline taxes are also used for roads. (Yes, I'm double-counting gas. It fits both categories.) Property taxes support police and fire, which protect those properties (and the individuals as well).

Finally, there are those taxes I call "Willie Sutton" taxes. (He was the bank robber who was rumored to have said (but never actually did say) he robbed banks "because that's where the money is.") These are taxes imposed on things simply because that's where the money changes hands, and the government wants its cut: income taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, and the like.

The latest fight is over the inheritance tax. (or, if you prefer, the "death tax.") It used to be 55% for estates worth over $5 million dollars, but that law lapsed at the beginning of this year. There's a push to reinstate it, with fights over whether it should go back to 55% or 35%.

Personally, I think it should be left at zero.

The theory is that if money -- large amounts of money -- or other assets changes hands, the government should get its cut. I have two problems with that.

First up, in pretty much every case, taxes have already been paid on that money. The deceased, in all likelihood, paid taxes when they got that money. Why the hell should the government take over half -- or any -- of that when he or she decides who gets it when they pass on?

Next, it often poses a hell of a burden on the heirs. Many times, the estate isn't strictly cash. But the government will only take cash. So the heirs better come up with some serious green damned fast, 'cuz the government won't take IOUs. They give them, but they won't take them. (See California and Social Security for examples.)

Let's take the example of the late George Steinbrenner. He owned the New York Yankees, and wanted to pass the team on to his heirs. Fortunately for him and them, he died this year, so they don't have to pay taxes on the team -- currently valued at 1.6 billion dollars. By my math, they would have had to cut Uncle Sam a check for $880 million dollars for the "privilege" of having their father die. I don't know the Steinbrenners, but I suspect they don't have that kind of cash lying around, so they would have likely had to sell the team.

So much for "the family business."

Further, most people in that economic strata tend to not use wills to transfer their wealth. They have very good attorneys to set up trusts and foundations and whatnot to get around that sort of thing. (One wonders why Steinbrenner didn't do that -- I suspect he didn't want to give up personal control of the team, and might have been in denial about his own mortality. But I'm just speculating here.) The age of fortunes being passed by wills is fading.

This lady I know had a couple of mottoes that I hung on her. She knew I was largely teasing her, so she embraced "nothing succeeds like excess" and "too much is never enough."

I wonder if she'd mind if I took them back and gave them to the federal government. She had her avaricious tendencies, but damn she was a piker compared to the feds.

Especially when the Democrats are holding the purse strings.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40751.

Comments (67)

Let's turn it around: ho... (Below threshold)

Let's turn it around: how much money is enough for the government to take from someone?

Come on, we all know there is no such limit. Most leftists will never admit it, but the amount they want government to take is "everything more than other people are making."

It's kind of a moot argumen... (Below threshold)
Matt:

It's kind of a moot argument. "Enough" will only apply to those that are dumb/poor enough to pay the punitive taxes. It will never apply to the ruling elites, mega-corporations, friends of the "fed" etc, etc. It's just about using public money to transfer to favored cronies and buy votes of the poor and ignorant (separate categories).

Notice that the Kennedys, t... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Notice that the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Gates, the Buffets, the John Kerrys and other rich Democrats are not being pressured into paying the taxes that they owe. They are the ones that are complaining the loudest about others not paying their fair share.

How much is too much for th... (Below threshold)
tomg51:

How much is too much for the government, via taxes on some, to give to another able-bodied person?

Survival in squalor?
Poor, yet sanitary conditions?
Comfy living?
A cottage on a lake with food and health care?

Aid with utilities?
Aid for buying a car?
Aid with cable TV and internet access?
Aid with buying viagra?

What would be the result of providing too much?


How much do you have?... (Below threshold)

How much do you have?

Warren Buffet is all about ... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Warren Buffet is all about Estate Taxes. He loves them because it helps his multitude of life insurance companies as the wealthy buy insurance which is paid out at death and not taxed.

Warren Butthead also profits from Estate Taxes as he snaps up businesses for pennies on the dollar so the heirs can pay the inheritance tax on it.

Business's lost, people laid off, and money in Warren Butthead's pocket thanks to Estate Taxes on already taxed assets.

JT, if a family farm is pas... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT, if a family farm is passed down, the assets of the farm are there but the money isn't so the family farm would have to be sold to pay the estate taxes.

Bernie Sanders also said on the floor of the senate that "People should take it to the streets". Wow! Encouraging violence. ww

"If God can get by on 10%, ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"If God can get by on 10%, why should the government need more?"

Because to them government is god. Whatever they can get away with, they will. And if called on it, they will scream.

If we hadn't passed Obamaca... (Below threshold)
Donna:

If we hadn't passed Obamacare, the desire to raise taxes so much this year wouldn't be so high for the Democrats. Just as Jay stated, if they'd stop spending, we wouldn't need to worry about taxes being a big issue at all.

Gee JT, didn't you see Secr... (Below threshold)
epador:

Gee JT, didn't you see Secretariat? All ya gotta do is sell shares to breed with you in the future. Oh yeah, that didn't work out so well at first, but eventually...

We have a fairly high tax r... (Below threshold)
yttik:

We have a fairly high tax rate in the US, if you add all the city, state, and federal taxes and fees. But as far as countries go, our government gives us really poor services in return.

What I believe is that taxes are too high when people are struggling to survive. It's not right to have to pay taxes if you can barely keep a roof over your head or stay employed. And yet here we are, even poor working class people are forced to pay gas taxes, payroll taxes, sales tax, property taxes, etc, and that's money that takes food off their tables. That's just morally wrong. The next tax bracket of small businesses and the so called middle class, really get soaked, and that's money that takes away from their ability to hire people or save for their kids college.

Our economy is really getting attacked from both ends. The national debt, just the interest on it, has driven up the cost of living so that wages just don't go far enough. A loaf of bread is now 4 bucks rather than the 40 cents it cost two decades ago. Taxes then cut in more and reduce our ability to provide for ourselves and to provide jobs for others. It's really nuts, because the government is in effect, making people poor. Then they turn around and want more money to care for all these poor people. The reality is we have to get off this train because sooner or later, there won't be anyone left to pay taxes.

Don't forget they are also ... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Don't forget they are also printing more as well as taking more.

Just for fun, let's roll wi... (Below threshold)
jwest:

Just for fun, let's roll with Bernie's idea.

He wants to confiscate the wealth of successful individuals who die because it's just not fair that their heirs receive this windfall. OK, give him that.

The vast majority of the estates that would fall into this category are the assets accumulated from a small business or farm. Larger fortunes, such as Buffett and Gates so generously put forward to tax at death, are protected by foundations and trusts that leave little if anything left for the government. Small business founders, who start firms with the primary goal of achieving financial security for themselves and their family, are the ones who Sanders perceives as not needing the money accumulated through their efforts.

But in order to bring fairness to this plan, doesn't Bernie need to add something? If you're going to take money from the winners, shouldn't you compensate the losers?

Small business founders bet the money others would be saving for their family's comfort, education and security in order to finance their operation. While union, big corporate and government workers sleep easy each night, putting in their 40 hours a week with defined benefit programs and no worries that a paycheck will be there twice a month, entrepreneurs are tossing and turning, worried that their kid's college funds are lost due to dip in business. The time these budding business people would have spent with their families at home and on vacations is used to build the business by working 100 hour weeks. Money that would have been spent on the current fashions for their wives and children went into increasing inventory or repairs on vehicles. Examples of the sacrifice that the heirs of business owners suffer throughout the growth process could fill volumes - and the sad truth is that despite all of the deprivation endured, most small businesses fail.

Wouldn't the "fair" thing be to use the money taken from the families of dead successful business owners to compensate the families of dead unsuccessful business people? Fund their education, help the heirs purchase homes, do all the things retroactively that people who never had to worry about making a payroll could do for their children. On top of that, give large cash settlements for all the time these children didn't get to spend with their parent because they were working to build something for their family.

I'm surprised Bernie didn't think of this plan himself.

How much is enough? If some... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

How much is enough? If someone takes what's offered... does it come with strings? No matter whatcha call it, food stamps, taxes, welfare, wages, compensation, social security benefits, federal reserve notes, or what not... they all come with strings. Think not? Just try and disentangle yourself from any of these compacts and see what happens. They will own you, and start dictating what is acceptable behavior on your part (at least in their eyes). They can even break you, if they feel like doing so. Why? Because you took the money, and now your beholden to the source of those funds. So, how much is the payback going to cost you? See Mr. Dill's comment #5 above.

Semper Fidelis-

What's Bernie's net worth? ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

What's Bernie's net worth? What's his income stream look like - investments, savings, real estate and all that?

I think he's probably got WAY too much, and ought to give up a lot of it. How much of that would he be willing to give up?

Isn't it amazing how folks in Washington - who NEVER have to worry about what THEIR financial future holds for them are so willing to force everyone ELSE to fund their dreams?

Well, gee, let's write a di... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Well, gee, let's write a different law. Clearly rich folks that are investing in business and research should not be punished with higher taxes: they are helping to make the economy grow. So why not hit the rich on the consumption side? How about a federal excise tax on luxury goods (e.g. expensive cars, boats, and planes)?

Wouldn't that be perfect?

The answer, of course, is we tried that, and for those of you who are too young to remember, for those who cannot read history, and for those who are just too stupid to figure it out, here is why we don't have that law anymore: it is the perfect example of trickle-down economics. Rich people sharply cut back on their consumption, and industries like boat building suffered terribly. That lowered the amount of revenue being collected, and it created economic hardship for middle class and lower middle class families.

Funny thing, even when rich people are only spending money, they create job opportunities for others. Boats made in the US aren't made by other rich people. The boats are sold and transported by working class people. They are serviced and maintained by working people. (Except, of course, for rich people like Senator Kerry who had his new boat made in New Zealand.)

How much is enough?<p... (Below threshold)
Hank:

How much is enough?

This cannot be answered by a liberal.

You cannot put a price-tag nor a figure on intentions, fairness or feelings.

Kevino - it almost killed o... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Kevino - it almost killed off the light aircraft industry too - and the tax was incredibly revenue-negative in that it cost a LOT more to administer the tax than it brought in.

But it SOUNDED so good on paper - why wouldn't it work the way they expected? LOL...


For his sake, I hope lurch ... (Below threshold)
914:

For his sake, I hope lurch has his wifes estate all in order. Would be a shame to see him lose out after working so hard for his inheritance.

Does the war in Iraq, on te... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Does the war in Iraq, on terror, on drugs come under the heading of shared sacrifice? Should I be expected to pay taxes for that? Defense in general, or can I get an opt out? because I don't think my hard earned tax dollars should be "stolen" to pay for something I don't want.

War Child defense is the fi... (Below threshold)
John:

War Child defense is the first duty of the federal government, if you don't like the war decisions of the government vote for the people who's defense positions you do support. If you feel the defense budget is too high write to your congress person and complain, but remember the federal government does have an obliagtion to defend the country, the country votes for the representitives that make the decisions and policies that drive the actions. I'll remind you that a lot of your friends on the left voted to authorize military action in Iraq. You may want to focus your dissatisfaction toward them, they could have voted against it, and I don't remember a single day during the Bush administration when he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. So without the support of democrates no Iraq war.

War Child defense... (Below threshold)
warchild:
War Child defense is the first duty of the federal government, if you don't like the war decisions of the government vote for the people who's defense positions you do support.

Who says it's the first duty of the federal government? You? I disagree, I think it is providing social safety nets for our fellow country men.

Why do you get to choose what my "stolen" money is used for? It seems their is a huge contradiction in your position. You are in essence arguing that it is okay for the government to take my tax dollars against my will and spend it on something I don't want, and it is just fine, right and dandy. Spending on what you want (military) is good. If we spend it on something I want (Health care) then everything changes and somehow it becomes immoral. That has always been the flaw in the right's position on taxes. You are just fine taking money from the taxpayer, you have no problem doing what you call stealing. You just think it should be you choosing where the money goes. So stealing my money for Iraq is good. Stealing your money for health care safety net is bad.

If letting the Bush tax cuts expire is stealing, then dammit taking my tax dollars to use on wars I never wanted is also stealing.

Mr. Child,The answ... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Child,

The answers you seek may be found in the Wizbangblog post below, "The protected..." by LtGen Kelly.

Please read the whole thing... think about it... and then come back here and let us know what you think.

Semper Fidelis -

Mr idiot.What does... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Mr idiot.

What does that have to do with taxes?

Mr. Child,Three mi... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Child,

Three minutes to read the whole thing, eh? (You can lead a horse to water... )

If you only knew what the Corps is doing everyday on your behalf... your heart wouldn't be so black.

Semper Fidelis-

Odd, I didn't hear Bernie s... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Odd, I didn't hear Bernie screaming when the Kennedy's had Rose declared a 'resident of Florida' when she died. And Massachusetts didn't get to take a big chunk out of her estate.

Guess Rose wasn't a true 'patriot'.

Then there's John Fucking Kerry - still hasn't paid the tax on his yacht.

Why doesn't Bernie go after Johnny?

Mr. Child,Th... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Mr. Child,

Three minutes to read the whole thing, eh? (You can lead a horse to water... )

If you only knew what the Corps is doing everyday on your behalf... your heart wouldn't be so black.

Semper Fidelis-

Mr idiot.

If only you would read the extraordinary work teachers are doing to teach your children with tax dollars your heart wouldn't be so black.

You see the issue isn't whether the marines are making sacrifices. It's whether I should have my money "stolen" to pay for them. Why should I if you are unwilling to pay for the heroic teachers working on behalf of your kids?

Perhaps now you'll understand that your point had nothing to do with the debate and was idiotic.

Warchild (taking a mediocre... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Warchild (taking a mediocre offering from a once great band and added another layer of tarnish my teen recollections of the 70s music scene):

Preamble


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The very first power of Congress spelled out in the Constitution?
Article 1:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Warchild-I did not s... (Below threshold)
DaveK:

Warchild-
I did not see anything in any of Brucepall's posts that indicated he was "unwilling to pay for the heroic teachers working on behalf of your kids", so your point about not wanting your tax dollars to be used in defense of the country that you reside in, is equally (if not more so) idiotic.

Two-faced slime like Buffet... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Two-faced slime like Buffett and Soros rail about how it is "immoral" that taxes aren't higher on them, and on their estates.

And yet, how much do they voluntarily submit to the Treasury? Not a penny*. Now, that's fine if it is just your opinion that taxes should be higher, BUT when you proclaim it a MORAL necessity, you take upon yourself another obligation.

By their own definition, they are immoral. Why would anyone listen to them and be degraded?

~~~~~~~~

* The Treasury averages about $50,000 per year in voluntary donations.

"If God can get by on 10%, ... (Below threshold)
Rance:

"If God can get by on 10%, why should the government need more?"

If God would get back into the business of smiting the evil doers, we could could eliminate the whole military budget.

What's with this 'Mr. Idiot... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

What's with this 'Mr. Idiot' stuff?

Why?

Warchild-I did n... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Warchild- I did not see anything in any of Brucepall's posts that indicated he was "unwilling to pay for the heroic teachers working on behalf of your kids", so your point about not wanting your tax dollars to be used in defense of the country that you reside in, is equally (if not more so) idiotic.

Well, Not really if you actually take the time to think about it. I opined that if (if being the key) taxes are immoral, then I shouldn't have to pay immoral taxes for the military. He reponded to that argument saying that the military is brave and heroic. Uhhh... Okay great. So what? He then said If I'd read it would have cured my black heart. Now since the argument was whether taxes are in fact immoral, I replied with my own red herring, that also had nothing to do with the argument in last ditch attempt to help brucepall understand, that his feelings for the morality of the troops work, is no more valid than any other moral argument for a tax cause.

Which leads us back to the fact that if taxing citzens is immoral, then anyone who supports taking my tax dollars to pay for the war in iraq for instance is immoral.

Red-herring's aside.

What's with this 'Mr. Idiot... (Below threshold)
warchild:

What's with this 'Mr. Idiot' stuff?

Why?
----
because it is pretty obvious he meant the "mr. Child" stuff pejoratively. I was just returning the favor.

Um...your moniker is 'warCH... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Um...your moniker is 'warCHILD', and you get snotty when someone calls you child?

Maybe you should lighten up, or consider using a new name.

The war kiddie is a cranky ... (Below threshold)
Harmon:

The war kiddie is a cranky little toddler isn't it?

Mr. Child,Or whate... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Child,

Or whatever moniker/avatar/incarnation you desire to go by, like Mr. War Child. I'm not insulted. Believe me, as a Marine, I've been called worse. And you are probably going to be even more disbelieving when you find out my name really is Bruce Pall (which it certainly is). And you will probably be even more incredulous that my wife is an Elementary School Teacher. She teaches Japanese - and is extraordinarily good at it (in my humble opinion).

Your not doing so well with me, Mr. Child. Zero for three. I wasn't being flippant which I asked that you please read the good General's post.

I'll give you another chance. Please read it, and that way we can have an honest and open discussion about the cost of War... the subject of this thread is: "How much is Enough? " And in doing so, we can forget about all this animosity and ill will that seems to be floating around. Come on - go for it. What say ye?

Semper Fidelis-

I knew it was only a matter... (Below threshold)

I knew it was only a matter of time before Mr. Child beclowned himself. I'm just proud as hell he chose to do it on one of my articles.

J.

Um...your moniker... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Um...your moniker is 'warCHILD', and you get snotty when someone calls you child?

Maybe you should lighten up, or consider using a new name.

Les Nessman (Richard Sanders), the fastidious, bow-tied news reporter, approaches his job with absurd seriousness, despite being almost totally incompetent.

So I'll just refer to you as Mr. Incompetent. Lighten up, now, it's your moniker.

I knew it was onl... (Below threshold)
warchild:
I knew it was only a matter of time before Mr. Child beclowned himself. I'm just proud as hell he chose to do it on one of my articles.

J.

If by being clown you mean exposing the ridiculous hypocrisy of your poorly reasoned posts then yes, that is happening. Otherwise no one has made one credible argument against my posts.

Mr. Child, Why d... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Child,

Why do you forget your manners - because your anonymous? Just act like its only you and me now - you got something interesting to say about taxes and war? Be honest here; I already know your not shy. Come on -

Semper Fidelis -

Mr. Child,O... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Mr. Child,

Or whatever moniker/avatar/incarnation you desire to go by, like Mr. War Child. I'm not insulted. Believe me, as a Marine, I've been called worse. And you are probably going to be even more disbelieving when you find out my name really is Bruce Pall (which it certainly is). And you will probably be even more incredulous that my wife is an Elementary School Teacher. She teaches Japanese - and is extraordinarily good at it (in my humble opinion).

Your not doing so well with me, Mr. Child. Zero for three. I wasn't being flippant which I asked that you please read the good General's post.

I'll give you another chance. Please read it, and that way we can have an honest and open discussion about the cost of War... the subject of this thread is: "How much is Enough? " And in doing so, we can forget about all this animosity and ill will that seems to be floating around. Come on - go for it. What say ye?

Semper Fidelis-

I prefer warchild. Now the thing is. I did read the piece... it's moving, it's nice, it's a red-herring. that is to say it really has nothing to do with the debate. Here is why.

Let me try to clarify what I am arguing.

My point is some on the right are making the case, that taxes are inherently evil. They are a bad thing. A case of the government stealing from it's citizens. In addressing this I pointed out the inherent hypocrisy in this position; which is, that the right wing is fine and dandy with taxes being taken to fund causes or things they believe in. That is to say, tax dollars for the Iraq war, A-Okay. Tax dollars for children's lunch programs... that's stealing! That position makes no sense. Both require taking tax dollars from someone who is not vested in the program. It is fundamentally the same thing, to take a liberals money to invade Iraq/Iran/N. Korea, if they are against said invasion, as it is to take a conservatives money and build a new bridge or a charter school. Both require taxes. Both presume the elected government whose job it is to lead has the right to tax in order to do so to get that program funded.

Now what you made with your argument was basically, (best I could tell) an argument that says these marines are outstanding wonderful individuals, and therefore deserve my tax dollars when I am opposed to spending for military above a very small basic point. How is that any different than my arguing I need your tax dollars to help the many wonderful inner city children that aren't getting a good education? Why is it that you have the right to take my tax dollars for a program you consider good and noble and just and I am not allowed the same right?

In short, it seems the right wing believes the government has the right to take tax dollars from liberals for programs they believe in. They just think it's wrong for liberals when in power to have the same right.

Also you and I have a very different version of the score. By my count I'm 4-0. We may just have to agree to disagree on that one.



Warchild I didn't say that ... (Below threshold)
John:

Warchild I didn't say that the common defense was the first priority of the federal governement the constitution says so. I have no more input to how your stolen money gets spent than you do. But it is a fact that the common defense is the responsibility of the federal government.

Mr. Child,Wh... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Mr. Child,

Why do you forget your manners - because your anonymous? Just act like its only you and me now - you got something interesting to say about taxes and war? Be honest here; I already know your not shy. Come on -

Semper Fidelis -

Jaytea calling someone a clown isn't bad manners, but my responding in kind is? I'm a counter puncher primarily. I won't call someone a name unless I think they are insulting me. I called you a name because I felt the "Mr. child" thing to be pejorative. You have said it wasn't, so I dropped my insult, and will even apologize if in fact you meant nothing by it.

As you see I have a rather lengthy response above.

Warchild I didn't... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Warchild I didn't say that the common defense was the first priority of the federal governement the constitution says so. I have no more input to how your stolen money gets spent than you do. But it is a fact that the common defense is the responsibility of the federal government.

John, The Constitution doesn't prioritize. It doesn't say provide for the general welfare after we spend ten times the next 8 countries combined on defense.

Besides my argument is a bit more philosophical. I'm arguing that that the claim of some on the right that taxes are inherently stealing is false(keep in mind the constituion gives government the right to tax period.) or more precisely that if it is in fact evil. than those wanting to use my tax dollars for wars I don't support (democrat or Republican) are in fact stealing from me.

You can't have it both ways if taxes for the poor are stealing taxes for wars are also stealing. or you can say taxes are in fact not stealing.

Warchild, you beclowned you... (Below threshold)

Warchild, you beclowned yourself when you got all bent out of shape when Bruce... er, "Mr. Pall" -- called you "Mr. Child."

Let me spell it out to you in very simple language. You have chosen a compound word for your name. As a sign of formal distance (probably more distance than formality), Mr. Pall split your name and chose to treat the latter as surname.

"What's your name?"
"Warchild."
"Well, then, Mr. Child..."
"Please, call me War."

As far as your claims of "exposing the ridiculous hypocrisy of your poorly reasoned posts," it's clear you have delusions of adequacy. I understand that there are some remarkable results in treating that with medication and therapy.

J.

Mr. Child, I haven't had th... (Below threshold)

Mr. Child, I haven't had the opportunity to read your "exposing" my "ridiculous hypocrisy" and "poorly reasoned posts" before, but let me take a freshly-serviced chainsaw to them.

First up, it's clear that you aren't a regular (or, at least, a long-term) reader here. You've got your laundry list of grievances, and you throw them in my face as if I have any kind of obligation to answer to you for any of it.

Does the war in Iraq, on terror, on drugs come under the heading of shared sacrifice? Should I be expected to pay taxes for that? Defense in general, or can I get an opt out? because I don't think my hard earned tax dollars should be "stolen" to pay for something I don't want.

Yes, the War On Terror (including the Iraq Campaign) is a Constitutionally-justified exercise. Read the preamble.

And no, you don't get to "opt out" of things you don't like. I'd like to opt out of Social Security (I will NEVER see a penny back from it), the Department of Education (still looking to educate its first student), a ton of social spending, and the 6 trillion Obama's added to the national debt.

But I don't, because we have a Republic. And our elected representatives have deigned to spend that much in those ways.

Your comments are positively Shakespearean: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying... nothing."

J.

Warchild, you bec... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Warchild, you beclowned yourself when you got all bent out of shape when Bruce... er, "Mr. Pall" -- called you "Mr. Child."

Let me spell it out to you in very simple language. You have chosen a compound word for your name. As a sign of formal distance (probably more distance than formality), Mr. Pall split your name and chose to treat the latter as surname.

"What's your name?"
"Warchild."
"Well, then, Mr. Child..."
"Please, call me War."

As far as your claims of "exposing the ridiculous hypocrisy of your poorly reasoned posts," it's clear you have delusions of adequacy. I understand that there are some remarkable results in treating that with medication and therapy.

J.

Jay tea that is poorly reasoned (as always) A compund word is the joining of two words to create one word with a seperate meaning independent of of the two words separately. for example, "asshat" when referring to yourself. I wouldn't call you "Mr. hat", because Mr. hat isn't specific enough to explain your buffoonery.

warchild is one word not two. it is the forename. not a forename and a surname.

As for your advocacy of medication, I assume it comes from a long love affair with pharmaceuticals. I suggest you try education instead. Make it your new mantra. "Education not medication."

Mr. Warchild,That'... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Warchild,

That's better. Thank you for reading all of the good General's post. Just so you know, the Marines don't really have a great deal of money to spend on anything...read the breakdown of the Federal DOD Budget and you'll see what I mean.

We're far apart on styles of government too. Notice what the good General had to say was non-political? Obama is our President - and Commander in Chief. While I was active duty there were 5 previous ones... and the LtGen Kelley served under them too.

The point here is if the majority decides what our country spends its money on...they get a slice of mine, whether I agree with the expenditure or not. Personally, I see no problem helping others when there is a need. My wife and I bought some nice young lady's groceries today cause we could tell she was counting every penny as she put her items on the conveyor in front of us. She (and her daughter) wanted to hug us - but we declined cause they both had colds. We didn't know her, but saw how well behaved her daughter was and even though her car was old and touch-up painted like a leopard - she had pride in it as it was otherwise spotless. So we said, Merry Christmas and there were lotsa smiles.

You, my friend, on the other hand appear to convey that it is morally correct to dictate what others should or not should have their tax money spent on. And thus, have a liberal bias what that should or should not be. OK, fine... but to make that right in your world, you gotta convince a majority for this to be so.

We just had an election... and your point of view was repudiated (is that why your so jaded?) News is (comparing the average age of the outgoing politicians - to the average age of the incoming politicians) that this generational historical wave has yet to reach its peak. The tsunami will really hit come 2012. So you better get use to the change - its coming.

Mr. Tea in his thread is asking, "How much is enough, for the American people to get taxed." In my mind, that is a very good question to ask. Overall spending is completely out of control. We as a nation need to have this discussion. And once a consensus is reached, the majority will decide and settle on what that will be. And from all indications - you are not going to like it at all.

Now see, that wasn't so bad...was it?

Semper Fidelis-

Mr. Warchild,------<... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Mr. Warchild,
------
Thank you for that it is appreciated.

I'm going to respond to your current posts in chunks since it addresses several different things.

The point here is if the majority decides what our country spends its money on...they get a slice of mine, whether I agree with the expenditure or not. Personally, I see no problem helping others when there is a need. My wife and I bought some nice young lady's groceries today cause we could tell she was counting every penny as she put her items on the conveyor in front of us. She (and her daughter) wanted to hug us - but we declined cause they both had colds. We didn't know her, but saw how well behaved her daughter was and even though her car was old and touch-up painted like a leopard - she had pride in it as it was otherwise spotless. So we said, Merry Christmas and there were lotsa smiles.

it is very nice that you helped others. I applaud you for that, and you have every right to feel good about it. But you are saying the majority decides what the money is spent on? So if the majorty votes for a democratic president and a democratic congress then they decide to raise taxes (even though they actually didn't) and spend it on health care you are fine with that? If you are then my posts were not directed at you. My posts were directed at those who think taxes are evil and then call for spending on things like the Iraq war(which require my tax dollars.)


You, my friend, on the other hand appear to convey that it is morally correct to dictate what others should or not should have their tax money spent on. And thus, have a liberal bias what that should or should not be. OK, fine... but to make that right in your world, you gotta convince a majority for this to be so.

I have to ask if you bothered to read my last post? I certainly did not argue I alone have the right to decide where the money goes. My whole post argued it is wrong to argue (as many republicans are doing) That they have the right to demand tax dollars for the military, but that we don't have the right to demand tax dollars for health care, or education or whatever.


We just had an election... and your point of view was repudiated (is that why your so jaded?) News is (comparing the average age of the outgoing politicians - to the average age of the incoming politicians) that this generational historical wave has yet to reach its peak. The tsunami will really hit come 2012. So you better get use to the change - its coming.

this is another red-herring. You really need to stick to the points. Fact is Democrats have the presidency. America elected that president. We have the Senate. America elected that Senate. You can't argue that just because America gave you the house of representatives back you get to run everything. I'm Sorry. it doesn't work that way.

Mr. Tea in his thread is asking, "How much is enough, for the American people to get taxed." In my mind, that is a very good question to ask. Overall spending is completely out of control. We as a nation need to have this discussion. And once a consensus is reached, the majority will decide and settle on what that will be. And from all indications - you are not going to like it at all.

How much is enough to get taxed? Well, taxes are at a 60 year low and the deficit is through the roof. Expanding the Bush tax cuts will add about 1 trillion more to the defcit. So I'd argue we need to be taxed more. We also should cut spending. I vote we cut the military. you vote something else. we'll both advocate for our side and see whose guy or gal wins. P.S. I'm not worried about 2012. I don't see Republicans have any one that can win. We'll see whose right come the election.

Now see, that wasn't so bad...was it?

I never said or thought it was.



"the deficit is through the... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"the deficit is through the roof" -

True. But is the money being spent wisely? Productively? With each temporary stimulus job costing in the neighborhood of $400k, I would argue it's not.

$6 tril in deficit spending - figuring 150 million heads of households - that comes out to roughly $40k each. I could have done a hell of a lot of stimulative buying with that - and I imagine you could have too. But yet - that's what we've been billed for a stimulus that's effectively created no jobs.

It's not that the revenue's too small - it's that the spending is too much. Way too much, with too little in return.

Mr. Warchild,You c... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Warchild,

You can't have it both ways. Advocate and justify for liberal expenditures while denouncing so called straw-man Right Wing expenditures. Read all the post above yours - who advocates what you said? So, how are you any different than what you are trashing? Pot- Kettle-Black.

Even your Democrat vs Republican argument shows your bias. I look at elections, especially wave elections, in generational terms...as I see it, after 20+ years of Boomer Presidents, we will not elect another. And it is also very true that all Federal Expenditures start in the People's house. Did the mighty Democrat majority even propose a budget this year? In the executive - in the legislative? What about a blue-print or guideline? Nope... its no wonder why our budget is out of control.

Cut the military during a time of war? Do you really know what you would be cutting? What does cutting the "military" really mean? You appear to be wearing a very special pair of cerebral blinders. Take them off and see the world as it really is.

As far as the next election come 2012; yes, we will see who is right and who is wrong about future direction of our country. It'll be upon us soon enough.

Semper Fidelis-

How much is enough to ge... (Below threshold)

How much is enough to get taxed? Well, taxes are at a 60 year low and the deficit is through the roof. Expanding the Bush tax cuts will add about 1 trillion more to the defcit. So I'd argue we need to be taxed more. We also should cut spending. I vote we cut the military. you vote something else.

Oh, the stoopid, it burns.

Tax REVENUES are not the problem. They haven't been dropping. But SPENDING has gone through the roof, especially in the last few years. And the first thing you do in a situation like this is to STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE, not figuring out who to take more money from.

Cut defense spending? Sure. Here's one idea. Stop any and all work on changing DADT and leave it just as is. There's some money saved right there. How's that sound?

And you're really showing how the "child" part of your name is accurate. Your spelling and grammar are painful. Just in that last comment, I see "majorty," "democratic" as a proper noun uncapitalized twice, "house of representatives" uncapitalized (but Senate capitalized -- go fig), "we'll see whose right," "red-herring," several uncapitalized sentences, at least one word that should not have been capitalized, a rhetorical statement with an incorrect question mark, and several others too painful to recount.

As far as the laughable logic of your commentary... no one here said taxes are evil. In fact, the worst I've EVER said is to describe them as a "necessary evil" -- note the modifier. What I'm saying is that taxes above the level for the government to carry out its essential functions are wrong. That just leads to gross abuses of government power.

Such as, say, dictating what a school can or can not sell at a bake sale.

Go back to Kos or Willis or DU, child. All you're doing is annoying the grownups -- and you're not even very good at that.

J.

Mr. Warchild,<p... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Mr. Warchild,

You can't have it both ways. Advocate and justify for liberal expenditures while denouncing so called straw-man Right Wing expenditures. Read all the post above yours - who advocates what you said? So, how are you any different than what you are trashing? Pot- Kettle-Black.

Okay you're not paying attention. My whole point is based on your sides's premise. IF YOUR SIDE argues taxes are EVIL then you can't turn around and steal my TAXES(for say Iraq) without doing an evil deed. My whole argument is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your side of the issue. I am not saying I have the right to have taxes fot healthcare but not the military. I am arguing that if it is evil to take health care tax money then it is equally evil to take military tax money.

Even your Democrat vs Republican argument shows your bias. I look at elections, especially wave elections, in generational terms...as I see it, after 20+ years of Boomer Presidents, we will not elect another. And it is also very true that all Federal Expenditures start in the People's house. Did the mighty Democrat majority even propose a budget this year? In the executive - in the legislative? What about a blue-print or guideline? Nope... its no wonder why our budget is out of control.

My bias? I'm certainly no more biased then you are. As for the defict, keep in mind that over 90% of occured under three presidents: Reagan, Bush, and Bush II.

Cut the military during a time of war? Do you really know what you would be cutting? What does cutting the "military" really mean? You appear to be wearing a very special pair of cerebral blinders. Take them off and see the world as it really is.

Uhh, your are missing the point. I am arguing in the abstract here. Philospohically speaking what is the difference between taking my tax money for a war I don't support versus taking your tax money for say an inner city learning program you don't support? There isn't one.

As far as the next election come 2012; yes, we will see who is right and who is wrong about future direction of our country. It'll be upon us soon enough.

indeed.

All,Just like all ... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

All,

Just like all my liberal friends, Mr. Warchild wants to be right. He truly wants to be in the Majority. Can he convince enough to come around to his point of view? Perhaps it comes down to who has the most honest and believable argument or persuasive position.

After all, Mr. Warchild's vote counts same as yours or mine. I say let him run and express himself... and even make a fool of himself if that is his wont.

Draw em out, go for it - tell it like it really is. Maybe we'll all learn something about each other (Mr. Warchid did say he read the thread I asked him to).

And as long as we are all honest with each other...listening and conversing on the pressing issues of the day is...well, good.

Semper Fidelis-

Jay -In defense of... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Jay -

In defense of Warchild's spelling and grammar and sentence structure - I don't have any problem understanding him or his ideas, and there's plenty of times my fingers don't hit the right keys - especially before the first quart of coffee kicks in.

What I'm saying is that taxes above the level for the government to carry out its essential functions are wrong. That just leads to gross abuses of government power.
One of the big problems we've had with government in the last four decades or so is mission creep. You go (for example) from providing inner city poverty stricken kids with lunches, to breakfasts, to (in some cases) dinners also, on the federal dime. People look at programs and go "Well, it won't cost MUCH more to include this thing..." and the next year there's something else, and then something else... and eventually you end up with something way larger than you expected that can't be cut.

In the flush times, or with flush times projected - the spending skyrockets because "We'll have the revenue to cover it." Said revenue doesn't come into existance, and the deficit spending starts. Just a little, at first, to tide you over till next payday. But that check's not what you were expecting, and you keep having to use the card to get you through. And once you start tapping your credit cards, the amount you owe balloons like a son of a bitch.

There comes a time when you've got three choices.

1. Hope to hit the lottery - like we did in the '90s dot com bubble. But that's a short-term thing, and instead of saving money we expanded spending, which was a damn stupid thing to do considering how shakey things were towards the end.

2. Cut spending. Which government is (by it's very nature) exceedingly reluctant to do. There's a lot of petty fiefdoms and kingdoms that have to be maintained, and they're resistant to dismantling. (Like in local school systems - you never hear of ADMINISTRATORS being cut - it's always teachers and programs that get the axe when there's budget shortfalls.)

3. Go bankrupt. And for the US to do that... it'd be messy.

When you're short on money, but have some income, you've got to prioritize. Budget for shelter, utilities, food, and essential transportation - and then see how much you've got left over for luxuries. You make do with the clothes you've got, the goodies you have, you pack a lunch instead of eating out all the time.

Government's got to learn to do the same. I'd say cutting a lot of pay and perqs for the folks in Washington would be a start - it'd get them in the proper frame of mind. Then start looking at cutting a lot of programs that aren't essential to the baseline functioning of the country. There will be some things that are almost untouchable - but I'd bet there's a good bit that could be dumped and never be missed.

First off JayTea, I noticed... (Below threshold)
warchild:

First off JayTea, I noticed after getting your ass handed to you on the surname forename debate you've on. Wise, considering how poorly you fared in that exchange.

Tax REVENUES are not the problem. They haven't been dropping. But SPENDING has gone through the roof, especially in the last few years. And the first thing you do in a situation like this is to STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE, not figuring out who to take more money from.

Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago -- the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-05-26-irs-tax-revenue-down_N.htm

The following year tax receipts were up slightly, albeit still lower than 2007 and 2008.

Naturally this makes sense as unemployed people make less taxable income than employed people.

So you're either lying, misinformed, or just not capable of thinking about these things; because clearly tax revenue has fallen, as I noted before. Now you are correct in saying spending has gone up. As in the case of TARP (Which Bush begged congress to pass to save the country) and the stimulus,(which Obama passed) and medicare part D (which Bush passed) and the two wars (Which Bush started and Obama continues.)

However if you want those things, you must increase taxes (as I want) or cut spending(as you want) or a combination of both (compromise.) Where the pain is best applied is a matter of opinion. It is not a fact. So please refrain from putting your feelings about what is appropriate government out, as though it is a fact. It is not.

Cut defense spending? Sure. Here's one idea. Stop any and all work on changing DADT and leave it just as is. There's some money saved right there. How's that sound?

Sounds moronic. I'm not aware of the military spending much money at all on DADT. In fact, I'd wager that DADT accounts for about .0000001% of the military budget. Well thought out.


And you're really showing how the "child" part of your name is accurate. Your spelling and grammar are painful. Just in that last comment, I see "majorty," "democratic" as a proper noun uncapitalized twice, "house of representatives" uncapitalized (but Senate capitalized -- go fig), "we'll see whose right," "red-herring," several uncapitalized sentences, at least one word that should not have been capitalized, a rhetorical statement with an incorrect question mark, and several others too painful to recount.

Really, is that the best you got? Really? You've been reduced to using grammatical errors to make yourself feel superior? Think logically for a second Jay Tea. I am having sometimes two and three debates at once. I am not proof reading my posts. I don't have time, not if I want to continue with all the arguments. This is an informal blog. Not a research paper. I'd suggest sticking to logic and facts because right now your erroneous understanding of what a compound word is, is far more troubling than my typos.

As far as the laughable logic of your commentary... no one here said taxes are evil. In fact, the worst I've EVER said is to describe them as a "necessary evil" -- note the modifier. What I'm saying is that taxes above the level for the government to carry out its essential functions are wrong. That just leads to gross abuses of government power. Such as, say, dictating what a school can or can not sell at a bake sale.

Now we are too the point where your Alzheimer's disease has set in. In the past you have made the statement that we don't have the right to raise taxes on the rich because, "It ain't your money." Guess what dippy do? My Iraq tax dollars ain't your money either.


Go back to Kos or Willis or DU, child. All you're doing is annoying the grownups -- and you're not even very good at that.

Lord knows I'd get more intelligent conversation there. Your not a grownup Jay tea. Your really nothing more than a weenie.

best,

-W

All,Just lik... (Below threshold)
warchild:
All,

Just like all my liberal friends, Mr. Warchild wants to be right. He truly wants to be in the Majority. Can he convince enough to come around to his point of view? Perhaps it comes down to who has the most honest and believable argument or persuasive position.

That's why I come to a blog where I'm decidedly in the minority, because of my overwhelming desire to be in the majority.

You know Mr. Lawson,<... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

You know Mr. Lawson,

We have an old saying in the Corps, "Throw a rock into a pack of Devil Dogs...and the one you strike... yelps every time."

What you advocate will cause all kindsa noise and commotion; but I gotta also say I agree with your analysis.

Semper Fidelis-

One of the big pr... (Below threshold)
warchild:
One of the big problems we've had with government in the last four decades or so is mission creep. You go (for example) from providing inner city poverty stricken kids with lunches, to breakfasts, to (in some cases) dinners also, on the federal dime. People look at programs and go "Well, it won't cost MUCH more to include this thing..." and the next year there's something else, and then something else... and eventually you end up with something way larger than you expected that can't be cut.

I'm taking off for a while because the posts between jay tea and I are starting to get personal. Before I go though, I have to say that while I might disagree with you, I almost always find your posts to be well reasoned and serious. I'd agree mission creep is real. In truth, when my blood is not up I'm all for cutting spending. I just don't think realistically with the deficit as high as it is that we can also cut taxes.

I think in all honesty, we have to cut spending and raise taxes. I don't see how the defcit gets fixed without shared pain. In truth I don't see it getting done,

Mr. Warchild stated:... (Below threshold)

Mr. Warchild stated:
"My bias? I'm certainly no more biased then you are. As for the defict, keep in mind that over 90% of occured under three presidents: Reagan, Bush, and Bush II."

On Jan. 4, 2007, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department.
On Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion.
Pelosi added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.

Mr. Warchild,... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Warchild,

# 58 Bingo! - I knew my intuition about you was right. First down right honest thing I read of yours all night. So see - we do agree on something.

BTW - could you ditch the vindictive? Its most unflattering to your persona, and detracts from your argument.

Semper Fidelis-

Wow. Got both Brucepall an... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Wow. Got both Brucepall and Warchild agreeing with me. I'd better quit and hit the sack while I'm ahead.

G'night, all...

Warchild -I'm gues... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Warchild -

I'm guessing (I could be wrong here) that you're not so much concerned with raising taxes as you are with raising revenue, or increasing the amount of money coming in to the government.

This can be, of course, done a number of different ways. We could mandate a 100% tax on all assets over $100k - but that'd really bugger the economy, and there's no way it'd be repeatable. (As the saying goes, you can shear a sheep a number of times, but you can only skin him once.)

We could shift to something like the FairTax plan. We can drop taxes to stimulate the economy (and thus grow revenue) or we can raise them to a certain unspecified amount to try to get more.

So we've got upper and lower boundaries. 100% won't work. 0% won't work either, obviously. (No tax? No income! No shit... lol.)

The trick is figuring out the right rate. You've got to maximize income while minimizing pain to the producer. Above a certain amount the business owner goes "I can't afford to hire more people, because then I've got to pay more taxes, so I'll have to raise prices, which will cut sales. But I'll lose sales if I don't have enough people." They can't grow their business. I believe a number of businesses think they're at that point, balanced right between "I'd like to hire" and "I'm already being screwed on taxes." This doesn't do anything good for the unemployment rate, either.

Above that, you get to a point where the owner goes "Screw this" and shuts down. The profit he earns isn't worth the hassle of taxation and regulation. So you lose revenue, and the laid off employees become a net loss since you've got to pay them unemployment.

The point worth remembering is that businesses are there to make a profit for the owners/stockholders in that business - NOT to provide a revenue stream for the government.

I think a lot of folks inside the Beltway (and on the left, for that matter) don't see it that way. Profit is evil, the government should take the profit and clean the evil off and pass it to the poor and everyone will be happy.

Yeah, doesn't quite work that way though...

So the idea that we've got to increase taxes just doesn't make sense to me, even if it's coupled with cutting government spending. "Sharing the pain" doesn't mean much when pretty much half the population doesn't even pay income taxes, but instead gets tax credits paid out in their refunds...

Here's a really radical idea, just tossed out for discussion...

The US government took in about $1.08 trillion in personal income tax in 2008. What would be the effect of completely dropping the personal income tax? (I'd see my paycheck go up by about $220, personally. Times 26 - that'd be $5,700 or so.) (And we won't even talk about my lovely bride's paycheck - she makes a good bit more than I do.)

That's a new air conditioning system for the house, or a new deck to replace the rotting one we've got and a house paint job. Or maybe tile jobs in the bathrooms. (A 30 year old house has... issues.) Or a good vacation.

So over the course of 3 years, I'd find at least 3 major projects to do, which would entail hiring people to do them. (I can do tile, but don't like to - I can paint, but I don't like heights. Air conditioning? Won't even go there... I know the theory, but don't have the tools or experience.) This would mean companies have income - which would translate into growth of the company. Their revenues would increase, which would be taxable, which would get that money back into the hands of the government. (And there'd be an effect on unemployment - businesses would have to hire to keep up with demand.) (Couple that with draconian penalties for hiring undocumented workers - and watch unemployment go down.)

It's just a thought.

Mr. Tea,What I lea... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Tea,

What I learned last night was that a certain idealistic individual gets confused about what his opinions, facts, feelings, and beliefs are. And by God, he thinks he's right and has a superior argument... even to the point of being nasty about it (which is a too bad really)... he even makes stuff up (straw-men), just so he can knock em down and win points... like some kinda self-gratification game.

Being handicapped comes in many forms. If one cannot be honest with oneself - then how can one be honest with others? One can't. And if one can't be honest with others, then how can one judge one's prospects in the world? Not very well, I think... Its like saying to yourself: well that didn't work very well, so I'll drop it like it was never (conveyed or) said, and keep reaching for another weapon, until I find one that works (or elicits the desired response from my opponent(s)). What kinda ID or ego drives such behaviors? - Its plain just pitiful.

I like your posts Mr. Tea. They are always thought provoking and focus on issues that are edgy. Brings out great comments, and sometimes pathetic ones too. From time to time, you even referee or cry fowl in the heat of it all. So be it, its your post.

I say let her rip, an give em all the rope they want. But that's just me (I'm a very old Marine warrior). Be honest, do your best, and continue fighting the good fight...and you will prevail where it really counts (in the court of majority opinion).

Semper Fidelis-

Dang Mr. Lawson,Wh... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Dang Mr. Lawson,

Where did you get such a dose of common sense? Run our country's budget just like all us common folks have to do ours? Then you'd have to put everything in the budget...no more extend and pretend. What a bunch of novel ideas. How bout we replace both knuckleheads running the FED and US Treasury with you. Them places sure need someone to set things right... and you already plainly got what them two special interest fella's never will.

Semper Fidelis-

Brucepall -"What a... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Brucepall -

"What a bunch of novel ideas. How bout we replace both knuckleheads running the FED and US Treasury with you. Them places sure need someone to set things right... and you already plainly got what them two special interest fella's never will."

Yeah, it's called experience living on part-time minimum wage... You're forced to prioritize your spending. Rent. Utils. Transportation. Food. There were times I had to choose which of the 4 to skimp on - but rent and utils were pretty much fixed. I doubt the folks inside the Beltway ever had to choose between buying bulk ramen or paying car insurance...

Okay, I'm long-winded. Sorry 'bout that.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy