Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
It seems like everywhere you turn there is a story about the how bad the deficit is and how the government must make drastic cuts to save the economy and reduce the deficit. The Tea Party is clinging to their demands for $100 Billion in budget cuts or they say they will shut down the government. “Rep. Mike Pence (R) of Indiana, a tea party favorite in Congress, urged taking a hard-line on budget cuts – and if that meant a shutdown, then so be it. “If liberals in the Senate would rather play political games and shut down the government instead of making a small down payment on fiscal discipline and reform, I say, shut it down,” Congressman Pence said, eliciting a chant of “Cut or shut! Cut or shut!” from the crowd. Republicans worried about blame for a shutdown might not be so happy with Pence for that.” Christian Science Monitor
It is interesting to note that cuts in the bloated defense budget were not included in the demands made by the Republicans and Tea party faithful. They want to cut the programs that seem to do the most good for the poor and the middle class, all the while allowing the wealthy and corporations to get tax breaks and tax credits. We have seen the stories detailing so many of the big corporations that paid little or no federal tax. “Last week, the New York Times reported that General Electric (GE), the world’s largest corporation paid nothing in federal corporate income taxes in 2010. In fact, the company made over $14 billion in profits and actually received a $3.2 billion tax benefit.” Think Progress
That is an amazing statistic. GE not only paid no federal taxes, they actually got billions in tax credits! That means that all of those nurses, and firemen and state workers who were in danger of losing their jobs, paying more in insurance premiums and losing their collective bargaining rights in states across the union because of the dire economic situation in their states, actually paid more taxes to the Federal Government than the Third largest corporation in the world! Why aren’t the Tea Party faithful going after the GE’s of the world to share in the sacrifice?
The Tea Party is not satisfied with the large cuts that have been already made and those offered by the Democrats, they simply want to tear away at the heart of the programs that help you and I. They want to end all funding to Planned Parenthood that would actually put poor women in the street looking for serious health care programs because they are also demanding to defund The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as they refer to it as. “With a hard deadline looming, talks to prevent a government shutdown have been stymied for a week because Tea Party members of the House have demanded everything: not just some of their cuts but almost all of them, and not just a reduction in spending but a reduction only in the programs they don’t like. Many are insisting Democrats also agree to nonbudgetary riders, like ending the financing of Planned Parenthood or health care reform. “ New York Times
Why does the Tea Party want to attack the programs that help the most people? Why doesn’t the Tea Party include the Defense budget in its budget cut plans? Why does the Tea Party not want to force our largest corporations to pay their fair share of Federal taxes? I submit that the Tea Party is only concerned about helping themselves. Just who makes up the Tea Party? According to one poll, the majority of the Tea Party is comprised of white, male, wealthy Republicans. “The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.” And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.” ‘ New York Times
If I read this poll correctly, the Tea Party hates Obama and they think black people and poor people are getting all of the breaks from the government. They also want to end wasteful government spending, but most of them want to keep “government’s big hands” off of their Medicare and Social Security! In other words, I want mine, but the hell with everyone else! These guys might be well-educated, but they must not be well read if they think the poor and minorities are getting all of the “big breaks” from the Federal government. Maybe they need to stop listening to intelligent politicians like Michele Bachmann and Rand Paul and start reading Prof. Turley’s blog! What is your take?
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
Gyges,
While I agree your equation could refute what i said, please refer to the context of both of our comments. I would like to see zero government spending but i would take even some action to move closer to balacing your x and y. The problem is Ive never heard you or anyone else on this blog meet a government spending program you didnt like, with a miniscule exception of religious conservative expenditures. ( I still say let them build that creationist theme park. It would be like the epcot center of the flintstones.) Again the article we are even discussing is that the tea party want to cut the government’s budget. Which hurts the middle class. And GE avoids taxes. Which leads me to conclude that because GE and the big boys dont pay taxes, the middle class is the one footing the bill for all these programs that you believe benefit them. So why not conclude that instead of taking more money from GE, which will certainly just pass on the cost of those taxes onto its customers who are most likely… middle class, cut the programs and let the middle class keep their money and improve their lives as they see fit? Why try to improve their lives through government confiscation and redistribution when they would almost certainly be better off keeping control of their own money and spending it on what they decided best improved their quality of life?
B,
Once again, my point soared over your head. I wasnt saying i want to fly an airforce jet. Im saying the airforce murdering people abroad does not in any way shape or form make my life better or confer on me benefits i would not otherwise have. As an example of a government “service” i should pay for because my life is better for it, it is a terrible one, even for you. If you wanted to go back to government roads being a benefit, thats at least debatable. Although given the state of streets in new orleans im not sure thats the best example of government competence either…
Raff,
Your dad was in the military and you find my comparison of him threatening peoples lives offensive? Thats so far beyond absurd im at a loss for words.
rafflaw,
“ekeyra.
My father died while in the service and that is why my mother and my siblings and I received huge sums of money from the boogie man. Your comparison of receiving government funds and robbing people and threatening their lives is not only illogical, it is rude, to say the least.”
This is what happens when you view the world in terms of black and white – no room for grey – and don’t think that perhaps, not everyone’s circumstances are exactly the same …
ekeyra.
My father died while in the service and that is why my mother and my siblings and I received huge sums of money from the boogie man. Your comparison of receiving government funds and robbing people and threatening their lives is not only illogical, it is rude, to say the least.
Ekerya,
I only ignore the spending side of things if you refuse to think through what X and Y could possibly represent in my little example.
To save you the effort of abstract thought: X is spending Y is income.
To save you the effort of scrolling up:
“…when you’re looking at an equation that X>Y and you want X=Y increasing Y and Decreasing X will both help, and decreasing Y or increasing X will both hinder.”
See right there, increased spending hinders balancing a budget. Alternately we could go even earlier in the conversation, “The problem is that the government spends more than it takes in. Attacking both sides of that equation seems like a good strategy to fix it.”
If you’re going to continue to make up what I think and ignore what I say, I’m going to save myself the effort of typing my comments, and let you continue to argue with this imaginary me (to help you form a mental picture, my beard is going a grey on the chin, and I usually wear a Greek fisherman’s cap).
Buddha,
She might be an anarchistic, but I find the fact that she admits to it refreshing. Anyways, usually I can carry on an actual conversation with her.
As far as selfishness goes, what we see historically is that countries which advocate selflessness and service to others usually end up in big trouble.
That I am your brothers keeper shit goes only so far before it starts causing harm to society at large.
Anarchy, keeping your brother its all the same pile of nonsense.
“taxation is not a crime”… because a magic piece of paper says so.
WTF? you have to have some laws. You are advocating anarchy. Which is bullshit.
You cannot rely on the private sector for everything. We need a limited government which prevents people harming other people and providing for common defense.
Anarchy is never going to work and would end up with small bands of armed men killing each other for a can of beans.
The debate should be about how much government not do we need government.
Swarthmore,
“SL, Prejean’s is a Cajun Restaurant in Lafayette. I will take your New Orleans suggestion.”
Next time I’m down that way (hopefully, the kid and I will be making a trip next year), I most certainly will head to Prejeans.
Haha your right 20 is way to late. Lets start at 5
“Why is it that not ponying up for unfunded government programs makes you a degenrate, but creating those programs and then expecting everyone else to pay for them makes you a hero?”
Damn I thought this was a liberal blog. WTF, I guess it is a libertarian blog.
That is a pretty good analysis.
ekeyra,
“Right, because you chose to address the two sentences directed at you and not the three paragraphs of ideas that preceded it.
Besides that, to put in context my comment that warranted your dismissal, what exactly is not herioc about avoiding someone else using your resources to commit mass murder abroad? Would GE be heroes if they donated 50 Billion dollars to fund the upcoming libyan ground war?”
What was the point of me reading your long and babbling post if the bottom line is that in your world, government spending is bad; taxes are bad; and evading taxes is heroic? Obviously, reality isn’t a factor for you.
Not going to bother responding to your second paragraph – I can’t think of anything silly enough to answer such a silly question with.
Just because you don’t like the example in no way invalidates the example. You don’t personally use the Air Force. If you’d like to try, be my guest. I’ll come visit you in Ft. Leavenworth.
Because the foundational document for our entire government says so. Governments exist and have power because of social compacts. These compacts are written down. And I’ve got bad news for you. ALL governments tax. That you don’t like it is irrelevant. That you don’t see the benefit of commonly built and shared infrastructure is simply childish and blindly selfish – the downfall of all anarchistic political and economic philosophies. That’s why you generally don’t find many anarchists of any stripe older than 20.
Also B,
come on really, the air force? Bombing third world countries and murdering people ive never met emphatically does not improve my quality of life. you couldnt think of a better example?
“taxation is not a crime”… because a magic piece of paper says so.
SB: “Taxation is not theft. It is a power specifically reserved to government by the Constitution, as is the power to spend those taxes for the common good and defense.”
I blame the smoked salmon for the sloppy edit.
“So if i abstained from using them completely would i still have to pay for them?”
Yep. You don’t use the Air Force either, but you still pay for them too.
“Thats also putting aside the fact that I was never consulted about their contruction, use, or funding, and was just assumed to have my life improved by them.”
Well, since you’re here on the Internet complaining and I assume you live in a place with running water and flush toilets, the assumption that it has improved your life is both reasonable and evidenced by the fact your aren’t shouting a woodchuck through the door of your outhouse.
“I mean if i broke into your house, stole your refrigerator and then used that money to buy food, shouldnt you thank me?”
False equivalence. Taxation is not theft, as is the power to spend those taxes for the common good and defense. It is a power specifically reserved to government by the Constitution. If you have a problem with taxes, find a country that doesn’t have them. Good luck with that.
“You need food, I provided it. On what grounds would you object to my course of action?”
I would object to your actions on the grounds that you are committing a crime as defined by law. Namely breaking and entering or burglary depending upon how the local jurisdiction defines these crimes. Again, taxation is not a crime.
Raff,
I obviously dont know your family situation, but would you be proud of your dad if he robbed people for a living? Would you say thanks for the house and the money to go to college if you knew he was threatening peoples lives to get that money?
Ekeyra,
I am sure glad to know that all government spending is bad. Without VA and Social Security funds when I was a mere lad, my Mother and my siblings would have been in the street. Yeah, all government spending is bad. Without that same VA and Social Security money, I would not have been able to go to college which lead me eventually to Law School. Without those basic funds from the big, bad government, my life and many others would have been disastrous and society would have been harmed by having so many more people in poverty.
Smom,
I used to live three blocks from Pascal’s. I think I’ve had everything on the menu. Never a disappointing meal either.
B,
So if i abstained from using them completely would i still have to pay for them? Thats also putting aside the fact that I was never consulted about their contruction, use, or funding, and was just assumed to have my life improved by them. I mean if i broke into your house, stole your refrigerator and then used that money to buy food, shouldnt you thank me? You need food, I provided it. On what grounds would you object to my course of action?