posted
I've worn my calculator pad out trying to crunch numbers coming up with a logical and realistic way that our government and we the people can pay off our debt plus interest.
We're running a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit with no plan to eliminate making the debt bigger.
Right now our Inter Rates are being kept at 0% by the Federal Reserve, it's been like this since 2008, when the interest rate rises, each point will represent an extra $200 billion that the USA has to pay in interest.
Almost every major economy has a debt larger than its GDP.
So...
I think this is an important question that needs to be answered...
How does the USA pay off a 15 trillion dollar debt?
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've worn my calculator pad out trying to crunch numbers coming up with a logical and realistic way that our government and we the people can pay off our debt plus interest.
Maybe a spreadsheet would be a better tool for that task next time.
Fortunately, calculators aren't that expensive.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raising Taxes would be a start. Seriously all the Republican whining about high taxes when they have not been lower in about 70 years.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, entitlement programs make up more than 60% of the Federal Budget. So I'd probably start there.
Once we adjust that, I'd be fine with looking at tax revenue.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, entitlement programs make up more than 60% of the Federal Budget. So I'd probably start there.
Most entitlement programs are transfers or near transfers. That is, money is taken in, then immediately handed out, with very little administration going on in the middle. There's very little to reform, and most of the plausible reforms for the big entitlement programs (I'm lookin' at you, social security) involve at least some tax restructuring (that is, tax increases for some, tax decreases for others).
Further, tackling a huge overhaul of something as thorny as entitlement programs as a prerequisite for any tax increases is irresponsible. Starting moderate tax increases in the places we know are best able to sustain tax increases is the action of someone truly interested in being fiscally responsible, since a very simple few calculations show that both tax increases and spending cuts will be required.
Of course, I'd like those tax increases to start with tax simplification, as that's a lot of what's hindering government reform efforts of all sorts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I just don't trust the government to wisely handle any additional money that we would give them through additional taxes. With the amount of spending they are doing with the current income, I really don't trust that they will use any additional income to pay down the debt. If they showed some responsibility and initiative in the past or currently I'd be willing to go along with it.
I would be fine with tax simplification, but there are many that would just tell you that 10% is easier to pay for a millionaire than for a poor person. I don't agree with it, but that is the argument I've seen. It would also effectively eliminate the need for a large IRS (unless corporate income taxes were also simplified) , which could cause thousands of people to lose their jobs.
The jobs issue is the main reason I don't see this ever happening. Most politicans wouldn't want it to come up during a re-election campaign that they voted to get rid of thousands of jobs. The other issue is with all of the people not paying taxes right now that would be taxed at a flat rate. A lot of politicians would be attacked for that.
I'm thinking of just moving to my wife's country of origin for a few years. Albania is such a young democracy I should be able to make a killing by opening a business there. I'm thinking a Taco Bell would make a ton of money. Last time I visited my in-laws we drove by the McDonalds they had opened, and there was about 60 people in line at 2:00 in the afternoon.
posted
According to basic economic theory, it's generally better to leverage debt than capital, assuming taxation.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Raising Taxes would be a start. Seriously all the Republican whining about high taxes when they have not been lower in about 70 years.
Gah. You could tax everyone 100%, and it still wouldn't cover the debt.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gah. You could tax everyone 100%, and it still wouldn't cover the debt.
Of course it wouldn't. However, we almost certainly could tax everyone at a rate that would cover the debt. That would be bad for numerous other reasons, though.
quote:I guess I just don't trust the government to wisely handle any additional money that we would give them through additional taxes. With the amount of spending they are doing with the current income, I really don't trust that they will use any additional income to pay down the debt. If they showed some responsibility and initiative in the past or currently I'd be willing to go along with it.
This is a reasonable fear. Of course, additional money earned wouldn't go to paying down the debt anyways: right now, outlays exceed revenues by a goodly amount. Additional money earned from a modest tax increase would go towards not getting as much more debt.
quote:I would be fine with tax simplification, but there are many that would just tell you that 10% is easier to pay for a millionaire than for a poor person. I don't agree with it, but that is the argument I've seen. It would also effectively eliminate the need for a large IRS (unless corporate income taxes were also simplified) , which could cause thousands of people to lose their jobs.
I have a hard time following this, but to respond to one part, employing IRS agents and tax preparers is an extremely bad reason for keeping the tax code complicated. The harm of the complicated tax code far, far outweighs any "good" by keeping people employed navigating it.
quote:The jobs issue is the main reason I don't see this ever happening. Most politicans wouldn't want it to come up during a re-election campaign that they voted to get rid of thousands of jobs.
That's the least of the reasons politicians don't support tax simplification.
quote:I'm thinking of just moving to my wife's country of origin for a few years. Albania is such a young democracy I should be able to make a killing by opening a business there. I'm thinking a Taco Bell would make a ton of money. Last time I visited my in-laws we drove by the McDonalds they had opened, and there was about 60 people in line at 2:00 in the afternoon.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: there are many that would just tell you that 10% is easier to pay for a millionaire than for a poor person. I don't agree with it, but that is the argument I've seen.
Why do you not agree with this?
No joke, I make about 10,000 dollars a year (not living in the states). Do you know what 1,000 dollars represents to me? Do you know the difference it makes in my life, between eating one thing and another? Do you think $100 thousand in the hands of a millionaire has the same effect on his daily life? How do you suppose that is true?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All we need to do is come up with something, some kind of new technology, market it and sell it throughout the world, and make a crap-ton of money. You know, like what we did after WW2 when we were the only manufacturer of automobiles---our other two competitors were sifting through the rubble of their respective decimated countries. Of course, after that they couldn't use their militaries anymore so they refocused their resources back into industry (in a way, we helped create Nintendo. So, yeah, you're welcome!).
Seriously though, I think Donald Trump had some good ideas about our stance on war. Granted, he was mostly kind of nutty, but he raised an interesting point. For starters, whenever we invade a country (like Iraq), we should take the resources and make money off of them (we used all that cash to get there and have nothing to show for it, after all). Not too many invading forces do what we do, and I feel like our economy is suffering because of it. What do you guys think?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than it is evil? Seriously, you don't see the problem with blatantly killing other people to take their stuff? Haven't we learned to at least pretend altruism when we rape and pillage? Geez!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, did you look at the information I linked?
I did, but unfortunately there are articles that say the complete opposite than the point of view presented in the ones you linked, so who am I to believe?
I actually found that the articles were a little dishonest. Tax cuts themselves do not cause deficits, and showing tables that say they do is just bad form. Deficits are caused by spending more than you have, not by taking in less. Tax cuts are fine, but spending cuts have to go hand in hand. I would agree that Bush era tax cuts, especially with two wars going on, was a bad idea.
The articles do not mention the tax cuts by Coolidge or JFK.
Here's an article that references their tax cuts:
quote:
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
It goes on to talk about Reagan and Clinton era tax cuts / increases.
So who am I supposed to believe? One group says tax cuts hurt the economy, another says it helps.
Is tax revenue really the issue? Or is spending the bigger issue?
Like someone said earlier, you could tax everyone at 100% and it wouldn't solve the debt issue. Well that indicates there is something else wrong. Increasing taxes may bring in a bit more revenue, but unless something changes fundamentally with the way we manage that tax revenue, we are just going to keep digging ourselves into a deeper hole.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, what happened to the economy in 1929?
According to your information, our economy grew just fine with a top tax rate of 70%. I would have no problem with a top tax rate of 70%.
The "big spender" in our budget is the military. Try to get Congress to cut military spending. Watch what happens when defense plants start closing in their districts.
The rest of discretionary spending is nickle and dime stuff. Easy to rant about but peanuts when it comes to spending. Also, the time to address government spending is not during a recession. President Clinton should have done it. Right now, when people are in worse shape is not the time to remove social safety nets and cut jobs. If you want the economy to grow, more money in the hands of people who will spend it (middle class and poor) is the way to go.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to your information, our economy grew just fine with a top tax rate of 70%. I would have no problem with a top tax rate of 70%.
The real top tax rate was not 70%. The structure of the tax code makes it hard to determine what the effective tax rate was back then, but given how astonishingly little effective tax rates vary over times we do have information, the real marginal rate was probably somewhere from 30 to 40%.
quote:If you want the economy to grow, more money in the hands of people who will spend it (middle class and poor) is the way to go.
Even a modest tax increase will need to include a good chunk of the middle class to have any hope of making a dent in the differential. What's more, people spending too much money is exactly part of the problem with the current economy. The driver of long term growth, which is the big problem we're looking at, isn't spending, it is saving.
By the way, we aren't in a recession right now. So by your own prescription, now's the time to cut from the budget. No, growth isn't so hot, but it's looking like it won't get much better than this before the next recession. So if you we're going to have any spending cuts, and we better, because we need them, now is the time to get around to them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The "big spender" in our budget is the military. Try to get Congress to cut military spending. Watch what happens when defense plants start closing in their districts.
The big spender in our budget is health care (more the 25% of the budget), some of which falls under military spending through the VA, but most of which comes through Medicare and Medicaid. The other big spender is Social Security. And unlike health care and social security, military spending is shrinking as a portion of the federal budget.
I agree with fugu that taxes need to be raised (and simplified) across the board. I also believe that military spending should be cut. But any solution that doesn't take into account growing entitlement burdens is being willfully blind to the structural trends in the federal budget. If we cut all discretionary (19%) and military (20%) spending and repealed the Bush tax cuts entirely, we'd still be running a $200 billion deficit.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Republicans voted 35-12 to end the subsidies, Democrats voted 47-5 to keep them. This seems to me like the kind of wasteful spending that there should be a consensus on cutting.
quote:According to your information, our economy grew just fine with a top tax rate of 70%. I would have no problem with a top tax rate of 70%.
The real top tax rate was not 70%. The structure of the tax code makes it hard to determine what the effective tax rate was back then, but given how astonishingly little effective tax rates vary over times we do have information, the real marginal rate was probably somewhere from 30 to 40%.
Well, no. I was using Geraine's figures.
quote:
quote:If you want the economy to grow, more money in the hands of people who will spend it (middle class and poor) is the way to go.
Even a modest tax increase will need to include a good chunk of the middle class to have any hope of making a dent in the differential. What's more, people spending too much money is exactly part of the problem with the current economy. The driver of long term growth, which is the big problem we're looking at, isn't spending, it is saving.
By the way, we aren't in a recession right now. So by your own prescription, now's the time to cut from the budget. No, growth isn't so hot, but it's looking like it won't get much better than this before the next recession. So if you we're going to have any spending cuts, and we better, because we need them, now is the time to get around to them.
Is your point that people are better off enough now that we can cut safety net programs? Or are you just pointing out that despite unemployment (which lags behind other indicators) it isn't technically a recession?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom Coburn's budget amendment to end ethanol subsidies, which would have resulted in about $6 billion in savings, just went down in flames.
Democrats foil attempt to end ethanol subsidies.
Republicans voted 35-12 to end the subsidies, Democrats voted 47-5 to keep them. This seems to me like the kind of wasteful spending that there should be a consensus on cutting.
<edit>To fix bad numbers.</edit>
If I understand correctly, there was a link between the Democrats' behavior on this one and the Republicans' defeating an attempt to reduce agricultural subsidies to cut out payments to huge corporate farms.
Both are obvious places where the government spending is misplaced at best. But that's not really a primary concern of either party.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't all that long ago that we were running a budget surplus and people like Greenspan we arguing we needed to cut taxes because otherwise we would be paying off the national debt too quickly.
The solution is really very simple. We raise taxes back to Clinton era levels and we stop fighting so many freaking wars.
After that's done, the only remaining real problem will be the skyrocketing cost of medical care -- and the budget deficit is not the most important reason that we need to fix that problem.
I posted my rant on the entitlements excuse a while back. What most people forget, is that most of the entitlements shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of the budget. They are funded by special taxes that by law can only be spent on those programs. Those programs are (averaged over the last decade), running a surplus not a deficit.
If you separate all the programs that have trust funds and special taxes, what you see is that the "real" budget is about double what we are collecting in taxes to pay for it. The problem isn't those "lazy people" collecting entitlements. Those people are primarily senior citizens who have worked hard for decades and are getting back from the system what they have paid into it. The problem is that working American "tax payers" are spoiled children who want government services (military, FBI, DEA, INS, DOT, etc.) but don't want to pay taxes to get those services.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me for not reading the whole thread...how about this for paying off our debt: the US government legalizes all drugs, and then taxes them heavily. That would prolly make a small dent in the debt.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It wasn't all that long ago that we were running a budget surplus and people like Greenspan we arguing we needed to cut taxes because otherwise we would be paying off the national debt too quickly.
The solution is really very simple. We raise taxes back to Clinton era levels and we stop fighting so many freaking wars.
After that's done, the only remaining real problem will be the skyrocketing cost of medical care -- and the budget deficit is not the most important reason that we need to fix that problem.
Lifting the cap on social security payments would help, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Forgive me for not reading the whole thread...how about this for paying off our debt: the US government legalizes all drugs, and then taxes them heavily. That would prolly make a small dent in the debt.
What astounds me is that the US isn't using standard alchemy practices to develop enough gold to solve the debt problem.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
jebus, they do that, but all the gold is being used to bribe the aliens to stay away...pfff...everyone knows that!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I posted my rant on the entitlements excuse a while back. What most people forget, is that most of the entitlements shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of the budget. They are funded by special taxes that by law can only be spent on those programs. Those programs are (averaged over the last decade), running a surplus not a deficit.
If you separate all the programs that have trust funds and special taxes, what you see is that the "real" budget is about double what we are collecting in taxes to pay for it. The problem isn't those "lazy people" collecting entitlements. Those people are primarily senior citizens who have worked hard for decades and are getting back from the system what they have paid into it. The problem is that working American "tax payers" are spoiled children who want government services (military, FBI, DEA, INS, DOT, etc.) but don't want to pay taxes to get those services.
I read your rant, and I remain unconvinced. Medicare is now running a deficit, regardless of what happened over the past decade. That deficit will grow. Soon (like six to eight years, even if we turn the economy around) the trust fund will be depleted. What will happen then? Will we face the fact that Medicare benefits need to be cut, or will we fund it through deficits or raise FICA taxes or what?
Considering Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security separate from the rest of the budget hides where we spend money, because the money that I pay in FICA taxes is money that I can't pay in Federal income taxes. Entitlement spending accounts for more and more federal spending every year. We could cut _everything_ discretionary (NEA, NSF, energy, everything) and _all_ military spending (wars, soldier pay, VA, everything) and raise taxes back to Clinton levels (on everyone) and we'd _still_ be running a deficit on debt interest, entitlements and contractual obligations alone. We have a structural problem and it's not going away until we face that entitlements are eating up more and more federal revenue.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It wasn't all that long ago that we were running a budget surplus and people like Greenspan we arguing we needed to cut taxes because otherwise we would be paying off the national debt too quickly.
The solution is really very simple. We raise taxes back to Clinton era levels and we stop fighting so many freaking wars.
After that's done, the only remaining real problem will be the skyrocketing cost of medical care -- and the budget deficit is not the most important reason that we need to fix that problem.
Lifting the cap on social security payments would help, too.
But lifting that cap means there's less leeway to raise federal income taxes on top earners. FICA taxes have gone up 10% over the past 50 years, from 5% of income to about 15% now, and they haven't kept pace with the total costs. You simply can't tax your way out of the way the federal budget is growing; you need to address the structural issues that are causing outlays to grow faster than GDP. Otherwise, no matter how high you raise taxes it'll eventually catch up with you.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, entitlement programs make up more than 60% of the Federal Budget. So I'd probably start there.
Once we adjust that, I'd be fine with looking at tax revenue.
Entitlements can't be seriously cut. That's why they are entitlements. Any politician dumb enough to cut off old people from Social Security and medicare (the two largest by far)won't be politicians for very long. Cutting all entitlements except those two won't even make much pf a dent. Really the only thing that could really be cut that would be anything more than a token is the military.
As I said Taxes have not been this low in 70ish years. Our economy did better, even thrived with much higher taxes before.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Raising Taxes would be a start. Seriously all the Republican whining about high taxes when they have not been lower in about 70 years.
Gah. You could tax everyone 100%, and it still wouldn't cover the debt.
Not all at once. But increased Taxes could create a surplus. A surplus over time could pay it down. We had a surplus until Bush went spending crazy.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: there are many that would just tell you that 10% is easier to pay for a millionaire than for a poor person. I don't agree with it, but that is the argument I've seen.
Why do you not agree with this?
No joke, I make about 10,000 dollars a year (not living in the states). Do you know what 1,000 dollars represents to me? Do you know the difference it makes in my life, between eating one thing and another? Do you think $100 thousand in the hands of a millionaire has the same effect on his daily life? How do you suppose that is true?
Yeah a 10% tax on a poor man making 20K a year is 2 or 3 months rent. 5 months food, 4 car payments or a fraction of a life saving hospital visit. For a billionaire it means he can only have 49 private vacation islands instead of 50.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, just lifting the cap doesn't make sense. I favor lifting the cap, lowering the rate, and means testing, in combination.
quote:You simply can't tax your way out of the way the federal budget is growing; you need to address the structural issues that are causing outlays to grow faster than GDP.
Sure you can, though it wouldn't be a good idea. We've got a big burp to get through with the baby boomers, but long term our projected population proportions entirely support the possibility of this. The largest non-military driver of the deficit is the increased aging of the population, but with immigration the US population's age profile remains pretty stable, except for the period where baby boomers go through retirement.
That is, this isn't true:
quote:Otherwise, no matter how high you raise taxes it'll eventually catch up with you.
quote:Those people are primarily senior citizens who have worked hard for decades and are getting back from the system what they have paid into it.
Well, no. I support providing the support services that our elderly deserve, but it is not correct that they're getting back what they paid into it. They'll be getting out a lot more, because medical care has become much, much more expensive (in part because we're now able to treat, expensively, so many things that weren't treatable before), and because the population ratio is becoming significantly more top-heavy than when they were paying into social security.
quote:Forgive me for not reading the whole thread...how about this for paying off our debt: the US government legalizes all drugs, and then taxes them heavily. That would prolly make a small dent in the debt.
Can't tax them too heavily or they'll remain black market items. But yes, drug law liberalization (which can take many forms) would be a major step towards reducing a lot of outlays, and potentially provide a new revenue stream. Plus be the morally right thing to do.
quote:Could you explain that one to me?
The middle class, especially the upper middle class, is used to spending quite a bit. The recent financial crisis was in part because that spending was artificially propped up beyond many's means for too long. Continuing to artificially prop up that spending is a bad idea, especially as there doesn't look to be a major boom coming that we can use to ease out of the situation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That is, this isn't true:
quote:Otherwise, no matter how high you raise taxes it'll eventually catch up with you.
Unless the structural issues aren't demographic, in which case it still could be. The rate of increase in outlays isn't just a function of changing demographics. One thing I like about the Ryan plan is it sets revenue and spending targets (around 18%). I disagree with how low the targets are, but I feel any honest budget discussion needs to start with something like that instead of, "we'll figure out a way to pay for it."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Kate, your question strikes me as quite absolutist. I don't know that there is one answer for everyone, and I certainly don't feel that I could give a sufficient answer here.
How much (as a percentage of GDP) do you think we should spend on supporting those who are too old or too sick to work?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The more accurate question is how much to spend on as much people as possible to account for economics of scale and lower prices.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Aliens aren't interested in gold
Hey now, Battlefield Earth said they love that stuff.
I actually liked that book and part of the reason I like Romney.
In the book there was actually a much larger number of alien civilizations many of them in a sort of cold war with the psyclos, so there was a plausible reason for their obsession with gold.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Kate, your question strikes me as quite absolutist. I don't know that there is one answer for everyone, and I certainly don't feel that I could give a sufficient answer here.
How much (as a percentage of GDP) do you think we should spend on supporting those who are too old or too sick to work?
As much as we need to spend. Seriously. If we can come up with $1.3 trillion for two unnecessary wars, we can take care of our old, sick and poor. It is a question of priorities.
How many people should we allow to be hungry and homeless? Without access to medical care or unable to obtain needed medicine?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, what do you suggest we do with people too old or sick to work?
Kate, your question strikes me as quite absolutist. I don't know that there is one answer for everyone, and I certainly don't feel that I could give a sufficient answer here.
How much (as a percentage of GDP) do you think we should spend on supporting those who are too old or too sick to work?
As much as we need to spend. Seriously. If we can come up with $1.3 trillion for two unnecessary wars, we can take care of our old, sick and poor. It is a question of priorities.
50% of GDP is acceptable? 75%? All of it? That seems untenable to me, but I guess if you're serious...
quote:How many people should we allow to be hungry and homeless? Without access to medical care or unable to obtain needed medicine?
You keep asking for blanket answers for individual cases and I think it betrays a lack of nuance in your thinking on the issue.
If you're asking whether I think its wrong that the federal government doesn't provide a home, a meal, a doctor and a prescription for everyone who can't afford those things on their own, the answer is no. I think the federal government plays a role in providing welfare, but that role should be ancillary to family, community, and the broader civil society.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You think that my thinking lacks nuance. I think that yours lacks a clear vision of real human beings who would and are suffering because of the policies you would enact.
As I said it is a question of priorities. Are tax breaks for the wealthy (or even wealthier corporations) worth what it costs in actual human beings?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How do you define "broader civil society"?
Broader civil society, for me, includes churches, businesses, friends, sports leagues, and all the myriad social connections that a person has.
quote:You think that my thinking lacks nuance. I think that yours lacks a clear vision of real human beings who would and are suffering because of the policies you would enact.
You can think that as long as you recognize you have little insight into my personal experiences or what real suffering human beings I might (or might not) know, love, and interact with daily.
quote: As I said it is a question of priorities. Are tax breaks for the wealthy (or even wealthier corporations) worth what it costs in actual human beings?
The wealthy, even members of corporations, are actual human beings. So the question is whether taking money from this group of actual human beings (the wealthy) and giving it to that group of actual human beings (the poor, sick, elderly, etc.) is both the right thing to do and also in the proper purview of the federal government. I think broadly it is on both counts, but I'm unsettled by the rapid growth in federal spending on welfare, frustrated by the lack of long-term vision on the issue, and disturbed by the amount of <edit>wishful</edit> thinking that otherwise rational people engage in when the subject is brought up.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
