One of the things that I don't understand about the government protesters is how they were overwhelmingly likely to support huge government expenditures to rebuild a foreign, non-threatening nation, but protest like mad against government expenditures to rebuilt our own nation in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Iraq War has now cost over $700 billion, with much of the cost deferred to where the total cost will end up in the trillions. And yet when a similar amount is spent by our government to shore up the financial system, assist the millions that have lost their jobs, and spur new growth, Sarah Palin has to show up and read off her hand that government is destroying our liberties.
It may surprise you to learn, though, that I am concerned about the spending and debt of the federal government. I don't think this is an ideological concern, I think most Americans are at least uncomfortable with our national debt. Some Americans are downright angry about it, which I don't understand, but I think it is important to understand the problem and react appropriately. Unfortunately, the government protesters, with all the vitriol and hyperbole, have made it difficult to discuss the issue intelligently.
And as far as I'm concerned, here is the problem: Americans don't want to pay for what we demand. As a result, politicians from both parties promise the benefits of government without requiring the requisite sacrifices from the public. This is no shocking revelation, of course, but consider the following facts, taken from a Washington Post article from last year:
- The average family pays only nine percent of its income to taxes (down significantly from previous decades).
- The middle fifth of taxpayers pay only three percent of their income to taxes (again, down significantly).
- A majority of Americans considers their tax burden either too low or about right.
- About a third of all taxpayers pay no taxes at all (excluding Social Security and Medicare).
Also note that, contrary to popular belief, corporations in America actually pay less taxes than in the average developed country (average 16.1%, US 13.4%), largely due a graduated tax rate and generous business deductions.I am among the many Americans that want health care insurance for all Americans, programs to help low and middle income Americans pay for college, Social Security for low income retirees, a safety net for the poor that cannot find any work or cannot find work that pays for the basic necessities of life, etc. I'm a liberal, therefore I want programs that help level the playing field. That is not to say that everyone should make the same amount of money or that we should pay for people to be lazy, but that everyone should have equal opportunity to get ahead if they so desire.
Remember, as we've pointed out here many times in the past, only a very small, minuscule fraction of Americans are intentionally lazy and living off the government for years on end. Most Americans are hard-working and have self-respect and pride, and try their best to survive on their own. But the system (i.e. market) is set up for poor people to become more poor, no matter how hard-working or talented they are, and for the rich to become more rich, no matter how lazy and incompetent they are. The rags to riches story is a heart-warming exception to the rule. So we turn to the government to make some new rules which are more equitable.
But we stopped paying for it. We give corporations huge tax breaks and promise the middle and upper classes lower and lower taxes until they are hardly paying any at all. And then we borrow money to pay for the things we want. So we have two choices to lower the debt: we eliminate those playing-field-leveling programs or we require more taxes from Americans.
Liberals and conservatives alike can agree that we should require more accountability and efficiency from the federal government. Pres. Obama has said that he is going through the government now and looking for ineffective programs to eliminate, and I hope that this is true. There should absolutely be pressure on him, once the economy is righted, to balance the budget and eliminate waste, like Pres. Clinton did. But Pres. Obama is right that we first have to stabilize the economy, and that requires spending. Then, in prosperous economic times we should have every expectation that government will scale back its spending, again, like what Pres. Clinton did.
We shouldn't let the government protesters hijack a meaningful and important conversation about government spending and deficits by injecting vitriol and absurd arguments about how government spending equals a lack of personal liberties. Everyone can agree that fiscal responsibility is best in the long term, but right now is the time for the government to build our country up again after a terrible economic disaster. If we are committed to doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should be committed to doing it in America.
Posts
16 comments:
Absurd. I'm speechless...... Did you get your information from the Op-Ed section of the Washington post? Before I go any further I'd like to compliment you on your use of the word vitriol, very intellectual! Now,
* The average family pays only nine percent of its income to taxes (down significantly from previous decades).
I'm below average in terms of American income and my wife and I filing jointly pay 18% federal income tax, plus 10% state income tax to Commiefornia. So I don't know where you or the Washington Post came up with the number nine percent.
* The middle fifth of taxpayers pay only three percent of their income to taxes (again, down significantly).
The middle fifth? Can they get a little more specific in terms of say from 45,000/yr to 65,000/yr to get a more accurate representation of the information that's attempting to be conveyed?
* A majority of Americans considers their tax burden either too low or about right.
A majority think they aren't paying enough taxes? Really? Where's the numbers? Do you know anyone besides your self who is either willing or wanting to increase their tax burden? Completely asenine....
* About a third of all taxpayers pay no taxes at all (excluding Social Security and Medicare).
This the only point that I may be able to agree with, and that's because I would surmise about a third of this country mooches off the system and hard work of others either through welfare, unemployment, or any other host of governmental "benefits" -
Bottom line..... I don't want to pay more taxes. I want my taxes lowered. I don't want the government to provide what I ought to provide for myself. I don't want social security, I want that money that's taken from each paycheck back, so I can save, invest, or do as it as I see fit. And if I waste it, that's my prerogative and I will pay the consequence for it. The United States government is spending out the butt, and we will pay the consequence for that as a nation. What I don't understand is the fervor against Bush for spending, and then when Obama comes in and increases that spending two fold no one makes a peep and it's perfectly okay? Please do explain...
"here is the problem: Americans don't want to pay for what we demand. As a result, politicians from both parties promise the benefits of government without requiring the requisite sacrifices from the public."
Oh, to the contrary, I believe the problem is that Americans want and expect too much from the government. And, of course, with some exceptions, politicians are all too willing to promise things to their constituents if it means they'll get elected. If we expected less, we could pay less.
"I am among the many Americans that want health care insurance for all Americans, programs to help low and middle income Americans pay for college, Social Security for low income retirees, a safety net for the poor that cannot find any work or cannot find work that pays for the basic necessities of life, etc."
Has it occurred to you that readily available federal funding is part of the reason tuition costs have far outpaced inflation? If money is readily available, schools will continue to raise costs and students will continue to incur more debt. Debt is bondage and thereby limits freedom.
Likewise, have we examined how social security influences people to forego saving for their own retirement? If they know (or believe) it will be taken care of for them, do they not have less incentive to save for themselves?
"I'm a liberal, therefore I want programs that help level the playing field."
Perhaps, but at the same time the programs that you advocate may inadvertently encourage sloth and wastefulness. That's hardly a level playing field.
"The rags to riches story is a heart-warming exception to the rule. So we turn to the government to make some new rules which are more equitable."
Perhaps we should turn to the government to stop adopting policies that stifle incentives. Then perhaps we would have a greater abundance of rags to riches to stories (though I dispute that class structures are as static as you appear to claim).
"Liberals and conservatives alike can agree that we should require more accountability and efficiency from the federal government. Pres. Obama has said that he is going through the government now and looking for ineffective programs to eliminate, and I hope that this is true."
I also hope this is true. I am skeptical, however. The government tends to exist on a one-way track to expansion. Rarely in this country's history has government bureaucracy been scaled back.
"But Pres. Obama is right that we first have to stabilize the economy, and that requires spending."
So, back to the questions I raised above re the unintended consequences of government intervention, does government bailout not foster a complacency among consumers and businesses? If a company is too big to fail, will it take unnecessary risks because it believes the government will bail it out? Is this not what happened to Lehman Brothers? Secretary Paulson met with the CEO and said, essentially, "look buddy, we might have bailed our Bear Sterns, but we are not bailing you out so you need to get your act together quickly." What did Lehman Brothers do? Nothing. Why? Well, part of the reason is that he was aware that LB was bigger and more connected than Bear Sterns, so if they were saved, surely the government would save them as well.
Letting more companies fail as Lehman Brothers did would have struck the fear of God into companies and customers in the future. But now, aren't we simply courting another economic disaster in the future by propping companies up and relieving them from learning that actions have consequences, which we all learned in preschool.
"Everyone can agree that fiscal responsibility is best in the long term, but right now is the time for the government to build our country up again after a terrible economic disaster."
The problem is, in politics, everything is short term. Politicians are interested in getting elected, which requires that they give people what they want now, not what they need in 20, 30, or 50 years down the road.
Anon, I think you make some good points that raise some worthy questions. I've never seen a study, for instance, that determines the effect of government tuition help on rising tuition costs. If there was one out there it would certainly be interesting to read.
One thing I will say, though, is that these programs were not created out of thin air, they were created in response to a problem. Tuition was getting more and more expensive and less available to the middle and lower classes, so government stepped in to help. Millions of retirees were living in poverty so FDR created Social Security. Now, whether or not these programs have some unintended negative consequences is certainly an issue we should find out about, and then we can try to tweak them accordingly.
I really and honestly don't believe, however, that such programs create sloth and laziness. I still believe that the vast, vast majority of Americans work hard, want to do things on their own and for the most part do do things on their own. But they also appreciate the help that they can get at retirement or during college or the like. And I think that given the choice between dropping a popular program and paying a modest amount more taxes, it would be a more difficult choice than some think.
GreatWhiteHope, it is going to take more than a few snide remarks to make a useful rebuttal. I linked where the information I put down came from, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. So if you want to dispute, say, that the average family pays only nine percent in taxes then you are going to have to do more than say that you, personally, pay more. If you have some credible numbers that rebut mine, please feel free to post them and I will reconsider. The same goes for the other facts I presented.
Now, I understand that you want to pay fewer taxes and you are willing to forgo most of the social programs the government currently has in place, and I understand that feeling. I would love to pay no taxes at all. But the majority of Americans would rather find a healthy balance between taxes and programs and for them it is a difficult line to draw. Right now we don't have a healthy balance: we're spending more than ever and we're taxing less than ever. As I said before, the choice between paying higher taxes and, say, getting rid of tuition assistance or Social Security would be a much more difficult decision for the average American family than for you. It doesn't make them bad people, or stupid, it just means that they might be willing to pay for those programs and value them more than you.
Finally, if you think "vitriol" is an overly-intellectual word, or a word a person might use to try to appear intellectual, might I suggest that it is time to expand your vocabulary a little?
I like how you lefties attack the person rather than the argument. I complimented you on your use of the word vitriol, but if you want to change the subject of your post then fine. I did not compliment you on your use of the word vitriol because it's overly intellectual, but because it merely smacks of regular 'ole intellectualism. I'm not trying to downplay the use of an expansive vocabulary, but I find it odd that so often liberals use these big words to appear as something that they are not - smart. The phrase "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" comes to mind. It's almost as if your use of the word vitriol and other avant-garde endeavors to put into requisition intellectual vernacular is an inadequate attempt to divert attention away from your weak argument and focus attention on the fact that you merely "sound" smart. Many buy into it. I don't.
This is so inane I'm not even going to bother with it. And, yes, I used fancy-pants words like "inane" and "bother" to cover up the fact that I'm not so smart.
Another liberal tactic.... retreat. Rather than face a debate with factual proof or a strong thesis, you all attack the person and then say, "Oh it's not worth my time to even entertain debate with something so infantile. I'm so above this........." So since you don't want to answer why spending under Bush was a sin, but Obama's spending is perfectly ok, can you answer why Mormon left your blog? Perhaps because of dishonesty?........
Alright tough guy, lets talk about it. First of all, you have yet to say or post anything that contradicts a single word I've written in this post or comments beyond your own personal observations despite your claim that the facts presented are "absurd." You get all hot and bothered pretty easy and start spewing out your emotions, but please take a deep breath and present something useful.
Second, the real question is why was there no outrage about the deficits under Bush but there is so much now under Obama? Consider the following facts and numbers adjusted after ignoring Pres. Bush's budget tricks:
2007 deficit: probably around $1 trillion. 2007 Tea Parties: 0
2008 deficit: roughly doubled from 2006. 2008 Tea Parties: 0
2009 deficit: about $1 trillion. 2009 Tea Parties: dozens
2010 deficit: projected to be about $1.5 trillion. 2010 Tea Parties: dozens in the first month and a half.
Is this really about the budget, or is it about the president? The faux-outrage over the budget is nothing more than an excuse to protest the president. Which is fine, but at least be honest about it.
To answer your question, as I already made crystal clear in my post but I'll repeat it more slowly for you here: Pres. Bush's extreme spending was mostly for the war in Iraq which was started under false pretenses and does not benefit the United States of America in any real way. Pres. Obama's extreme spending is to help the United States of America directly during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Is that clear enough?
Now, I am expecting some vitriol from you in response, and frankly I welcome it.
**Big intellectual words used in this comment: contradict, observation, deficit, faux, pretense, vitriol (again!).
Thanks for speaking more slowly, I appreciate it... Oh and can you throw in the definitions for your "big kid words" for those of us with a less "intellectual" vocabulary? Brother please! I'll get back to you with some facts and numbers to substantiate my side, I'm getting ready for bed for another early day for those of us who contribute to society through a thing called work. See that's what we conservatives do on a daily basis to attempt to support ourselves and our families while you libtards are out advocating higher taxes on our backs in order to support the lazy and idle, the pot smokers, the commies and socialists, the pro-abortionists, and homosexuals. There's your vitriol for the evening. By the way emotion doesn't necessarily come across in text, but I'm no more upset now as I go to bed than I am each day for having my freedom to prosper restricted more and more each day I live. Oh yeah, funny you should bring up "Bush's" war. I'll have something additional for you on that manana. Goodnight Brother S, from Brother GWH. Or should we say Comrade?
Ok, since us less intellectual folk are so dumb, we have to prove our points with dumbed down visualizations. So here's some visualization that facilitates the outrage over government spending. And let me just add that I don't care whether the spending is under Republican leadership or Communist leadership/Democrat Party leadership, the bottom line is the spending has got to stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJu0DgpiK8c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc
This third link is the one most pertaining. And it's sad that none of the mainstream media outlets will cover any of this information.
I don't want to bring up the war talk in this conversation 'cause it'll open up a whole new can of worms, however little known fact there were terrorist training camps in and around Baghdad prior to the invasion as well as a history of not just posession of WMD's by Saddam Hussein but in fact a history of using them.
So the upshot of that last video, "the one most pertaining" (that made me chuckle), is that Democratic presidents have a far better track record than Republican presidents when it comes to the national debt, and that if you use fuzzy eight-year projections it makes Pres. Obama look bad. Gotcha.
I can clearly see you're a party man. Fine. Enjoy your trip to hell with the Republicans and Democrats driving the ship together. That's what I mean when I say wake up. Neither party is good for America. They both promote self interest of their party members rather than an interest in accurate representation of the constituents. I can man up and say I voted for W and he let me down through massive government spending. Why can't you admit that Obama is spending excessively and leading our country into an era of financial instability and threatening our national security in doing so? It's called honesty. Oh wait.... that's a trait that's not too high in your book. You know how long it would take to pay 1 trillion dollars worth of debt off? Try 3,000,000 per day every day for 1,000 years. But numbers are meaningless to you libs because you're just emotional.
If you go back and look through this blog you will see plenty of times when I have criticized Pres. Obama and the Democrats. I have no problem doing that. I think the Obama administration is showing a lack of leadership in a difficult environment, for instance. I think Congressional Democrats are bumbling. But I do want them to succeed because I want America to succeed.
I simply don't think the stimulus package is the end of the nation, the end of individual liberties, and the end of democracy. Yeah, it sucks to rack up that debt, but it was done to shore up the faltering economy. Plenty of independent economists, like Moody's, have shown how it helped to save millions of jobs, and it is only about one third of the way used. I really meant what I said in the title to this post, and I agree with the implication in the newer post about extremism from Tony: we have to tone down the rhetoric, it is getting too hot and partisan.
But I do want them to succeed because I want America to succeed.
Success at what cost? That's like saying, "I want change." Well, I personally don't want just change, I want change int he right direction. I want positive change. I don't want change as in let's make America socialist. I don't want Obama to succeed if his success means a restriction of individual liberties, higher taxes, greater social programs, advocation of agendas that tear down the family. Do I want America to succeed as a nation? Absolutely, I would not have enlisted in the military and put my life on the line in order to defend it. But I absolutely do not want the type of change that the liberals in this country are advocating. It will destroy this nation.
So GWH, you're a military man. Well then, all is forgiven. Through your service you have come to understand the pathway to a perfect nation. I'm glad we have people like you laying down their life on the battlefield, and then when you come home, you do nothing but work. You're right, "work" is not a term I'm too familiar with. I've heard of the concept, and I'm so glad that we have conservatives like you that can do it "on a daily basis to attempt to support ourselves and our families." I'll conceed, I'm a total "libtard" that advocates higher taxes on people just like you so that me and me and my lazy and idle friends - the pot smokers, the commies and socialists, the pro-abortionists, and homosexuals - can have a good, carefree life.
Two questions - do you ever listen to yourself talk? and how has anything you said suggest any solution to the problems?
I lied, couple more questions - if the libtards, and reptards (or whatever cute name you have for them) don't have the answers, then what do you propose? More $549 tickets to seek the GreatWhiteWitch's advice? I know that for me and my friends, that was a steal of a price, but I thought the Tea-baggers were a the blue collar, menial salary lot.
Or do YOU have the answers? Beyond the classic political mumbo-jumbo (that's what us hippies call it), is there anything of substance you would like to say?
Elaborate on which individual liberties you have lost in the last year. Expand on what taxes have increased for you since the Czar entered office. Expound the agendas that have destroyed your family. Explain the social programs that have mobilized the worthless zombies of society.
Yeah, I wrote that paragraph, thesaurus in hand. I'll be back later, time for one last toke for today.
Post a Comment