Why is America
 

so damned cheap? All the pundits and so-called experts are moaning and groaning about 'entitlements'. Other nations look after their people and still manage to keep the national budget in-line. I have never heard the term 'entitlement' used in any of those countries that I have lived in or visited. People there simply take it for granted that these things need to be done. Yet here there is much wailing and weeping about the simple act of letting people pass their senior years in dignity, or getting decent healthcare.


All the billionaires need to realize that they can't take it with them. Leaving it to their kids is going to ruin their lives, look at all the heirs and heiresses that make the pages of the press these days, a truely sorry lot. So what has amassing so much at the expense of so many done for them. Start all the 'charities' that they will they must know that people hate their guts.

As the king said t'is a puzzlement.

I think it has a lot to do with American culture to be completely honest. Hell, one of the reasons the US revolted against the British was because they viewed their taxation as unfair. The Founding Fathers, that everyone seems to love to look back on with reverence, along with the nearly all of the politicians of the 19th century, collected nearly all tax revenue from tariffs, alcohol, and tobacco. Local governments were left to tax the people, mostly through property tax.

Many Americans are of the mindset that when they are paid for the work they do, that money is theirs. They do not want their tax dollars going towards a program that they do not agree with. Hence policy riders and whatnot.

I think the mindset of many Americans that the taking of tax money and using it towards government programs is too socialist or communist. And you old farts learned back in the 50s how everything should be done to resist those commie pinkos. This relates to your entitlement statement. I live in Europe currently and can't make up my mind as to what is better. Both places do things that I like and dislike.

I don't accept the premise of your question:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008...tion-of-givers

A follow question might be: what right does anyone have to lay a "moral claim" to the wealth or possessions of any other person?

Is that like "some people say" ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
:p

I am quite sure that Rob is referring to nations taking care of their own. He certainly does not mention charitable organizations in his post.

Do you really think that since I have been paying FICA and the rest since 1970, which I have, that not only do I have no right to what was promised me for doing so, that I am actually stealing from some hedge fund manager if I do collect?
Wow.


Carl

I challenge you to point to anywhere on this forum where I've stated or even implied that. Do you really think that style of debate is effective? Wow.

I did start to watch the video clip. But when I saw some of the lightweights that were being featured, including Larry Johnson, I had to stop watching. And I'm not sure what the clip had to do with the title of the thread.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."

- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932

Sometimes I get the feeling that the GOP wants something other than a civilized society.

The prefer subjugation to civilization.

BTW Finn, your gal disappointed me with the way she glossed over all of the riders in her comments on the budget bill.

Regards,

D-Ray

Oliver Wendell Holmes also said:"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.". While he may have understood the nature of "death and taxes", he also understood that there we limits on the burdens that one man might choose to place on another.

I've posted above that we Americans expand a significant portion of our after tax income on charitable giving (as well as ranking extremely high in the amount of time spent in charitable endeavors). Combined with the amount of tax revenue spent on social programs or entitlements, does there ever get to be a point were we recognize, and view in an appropriate perspective, the extent to which we already support the world's less fortunate? This is not to suggest that our efforts should somehow plateau, but I was raised Catholic and thought that the priests and nuns could fling the guilt. They've got nothing on the sheer contempt and larceny in their heart that those on the left appear to have for those who have had success in life. And for those on the left that love to lecture the right about trying to "impose our values", how is the desire to use the tax code to play Robin Hood with someone else's earnings any different?

It would seem that I have some kind of Morton's Fork between subjugation by the captains of industry or the dolts inside the beltway? Oh, so many choices and so little time! ;)

Oh stop your whining you tightwad. "Look! This guy over here just gave fifty bucks to Feed a Starving African Kid! See, we're generous!" :p

The right just absolutely hates to see anyone get a penny that they didn't sweat blood for and you know it.

You talk about these things as if none of us have any so-called "conservatives" in our lives, and don't know any better.:confused:

Dave

Oh, you didn't know that they claim superiority over everyone that disagrees. They clearly think that they have the moral and intellectual high ground. The anger and hatred espoused by the democratic party is unconscionable. The democrats continue to race bait and specialize in fomenting class warfare. There is no good reason why so few ought support so many.

We spend 43% of the world share on military expenditures. Perhaps, if we didn't do that, we'd have more money to take care of the aged. Then again, the world economy could also collapse without us policing it. Also, what is the percentage of people in these other countries that pay no taxes? What percentage of people in these other countries work for the government?

There are not enough billionaires to cover our deficits. The problem is more systemic than just the polarization of wealth as it currently is.

The well-being of the world economy doesn't depend upon us engaging in military adventurism (e.g., Iraq). In fact, us spending our way into oblivion on such military adventures probably threatens the world economy more than it helps it. Better policing of our own financial services industry would do us and the rest of the world far more good than pretending we're the world's policeman.

+1.

Dave

I see you reject the teachings of Christ. No biggie but as to why you are obligated to give back the answer is simple. What is good for the whole is good for the individual. We, Americans are a tribe, we are not independent individuals at odds with one another for resources, as the ego's on the right want to believe.
People such as you have no rational morals so of course there can be no valid answer for you.

To most of us it is clear that it is the society that has contributed to our wealth and that the society should benefit from what we achieve. We all fill different rolls and you belief that ones contribution is more valid than another is simplistic and invalid.
My question is how do you claim wealth or possessions we all should share?

Are you thereby saying that taxes are immoral? Good luck with that argument on April 15.:rolleyes:

We policing the world economy? You really have to be joking. We were the idiots with those &^%$ derivatives that put the world economy in the toilet.

BTW derivatives are anathema in Canada so no bank bailouts were needed. And no bankers were in the Bahamas relaxing in the sun paid for with taxpayer dollars. It seems a contract with a crook must be honoured but a contract with anyone who paid FICA is an "entitlement".

As a comparision I looked up federal government employees as a percentage of population, the U.S. and Canada are so close to equal that the difference is insignificant. As for government efficiency, Canada's Single Payer plan operates with fewer employees than Blue Cross uses for just the state of Massachusets.

No country has a class of people that pay no taxes, they may however have a class of people who pay no Income Tax, you cannot get blood from a stone.

As a percentage of income those classified as below the poverty line probably pay more taxes than the wealthy.

Got any more strawmen?

I was thinking more along the lines of regional wars occurring thus disrupting the economies. I don't think states have all become cozy by default. Nationalism is never dead only quiescent IMHO.

Canada also pays ~1/3 the amount on defense wrt GDP as the United States. I'd be interested in the overall government employee percentages. I can envision single payer or private being better than the mixed system we have now.

Are there people below the poverty line that receive aid from government that offsets their other tax outlays? That is, have a positive cash flow from the government.

OK, but will not other countries act in their interest by expanding their influence in regions. A withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum that would be rapidly filled by other national actors. I do not see these conflicts being dealt with by the U.N. The recent NATO adventurism depicts cleavages still between even that organization's members.

What taxes represent, government, is immoral inasmuch that government restrains individual freedom and the autonomy of the person. Whether that restraint is good or bad is a different matter.

Nationalism is alive and well right here, not necessarily a bad thing if done properly.

Well I had not noticed anyone thinking of invading Canada of late, in fact the last lot were the Fenians and look what happened to them.

Well food stamps are now quite restrictive and I have no idea (Thank God) what they are worth.

Christ was a big government, redistribution of wealth by force whacko leftist? Wow, who knew? I wonder what he could have possibly meant by the phrase "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give to God what is God's."

I don't think I would go as far as you did in the first paragraph, or the personal nature of your post in general.

However, the basic premise of "giving back" does make sense to me. What comes to mind are the elderly who have worked hard, raised their families, made their contributions and/or served in this nations wars. I have no qualms with my tax money helping to relieve their burden in their waning years. They've done their bit and they deserve to have some peace of mind. Even if it is partly at my expense.

This is why I believe Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security should be "off the table".

It's the military that is WAY too friggin' big, WAY too friggin' expensive, and WAY to wasteful. It pains me to say that, but I believe it to be true. If we sell out our own elderly, so we can continue to strap on the Superman cape and go around "saving the world" or whatever you want to call it...............In my mind that says something about our national character. Something UGLY. (And "Christ-like", sure aint it.):rolleyes:

Dave

The alternative is anarchy.

He meant pay your damned taxes and respect his teaching which included taking care of the poor, sick and elderly not bathing in a life of material possessions while your neighbors starve rationalizing the situation.

no matter how you cut it the philosophy of the right is juxtaposed to the teachings of Christ and irresponsible for the society

Once again, very well put.

I suppose that arrogance exists all along the political spectrum, but the arrogance of the wealthy seems to be that they did it all on their own, and they deserve to keep it all, no matter how much the laws and advantages of our society made it possible. How many businesses can exist without an educated work force, without an infrastructure, without defense of our interests? All government investments are OK as long as they receive a return, but if they perceive that some who are undeserving will receive benefits, then they are being robbed.

Regards,

D-Ray

LOL, do tell.

and please explain the Whellian philosophy utilizing examples.

Perhaps their is a book, Stifling the Rockefeller's or The Oppression of JP Morgan?

we all have the same opportunities and are born equally, it's the 'hard workers" who earn billions. The lazy are simple jealous.

If your assertion were even remotely true, Somalia would be a wonderful place and Scandinavia a hell-hole. I've been to the horn of Africa and to Scandinavia and I can assure neither is true (nor is any recent GOP platitude.)

Restrains are nececessary to have some check on the powerful. Restrains such as governmental restrictions on pollution.

Good or bad is not relevant, necessity is the operative word. Greed is alive and well and therefore men must be subject to necessary restraints. The assumption of so many, nay ALL, Libertarians is that men are good and will always behave well toward their fellow. We all know that such is not the case.

Amen brother.

Once again, Noone, the facts and your opinions are polar opposites:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/t/story?id=2682730&page=1
http://www.american.com/archive/2008...tion-of-givers

The data suggests that folks on the "right" are fairly generous with their money and their time. The folks on the left? Uh...not so much.

Hey, Whell. Got ten bucks, man? I'm jus tryin' to get downtown, need some smokes for the ride...................:)

Dave

Even the most conservative folks that I've read or heard state that a social safety net is a necessary part of a benevolent and successful society. The statement above may gain some rhetorical points but it misses the point.

I don't think anyone here would contest a statement that our government is too expensive in ALL areas. The lack of will to change that status quo is maddening. But it's absolutely galling that the growth, consumption of tax dollars, waste and fiscal abuse seems to be gaining momentum.

Whatever we're spending the tax money on, whether it's payroll, an aircraft carrier, buying good graces with our foreign policy, or food stamps, we're only partially covering our spending with tax income. The rest is funded by debt. The debt gets deeper ever year because the annual budget funds only interest payments, and we keep adding to principle.

Conservatives don't contest the need for social spending, but there is certainly room to contest the scope of social spending. I also don't think its out of line to cut programs that are less productive. As long as a program - any government program - has a specific objective and a defined goal, I don't think defining an ROI objective is a stretch. This could be true for military spending, infrastructure spending, social spending, or environmental spending.

I also think that ROI data should be made available so that citizens of any state can see year over year how much of their federal tax dollars were spent in their state versus being diverted to fund programs or projects in other states. I don't believe that the seniority system in the Sentate should determine where the lions share of taxes are spent.

Is any of this too unreasonable to contemplate?

Get a job, ya bum! :D

Good luck doing that on the $750 billion defense budget.:rolleyes:

FWIW, "investment" is a silly euphemism for government spending and, accordingly, a ROI calculation is incalculable/immaterial. Direct costs/benefits are tough enough to measure for such spending, indirect costs/benefits nigh impossible.

If individual will and rational choice distinguish moral man, then liberty and autonomy ought be maximized. Government by definition restricts freedom, thus, government ought be limited in scope and coerciveness to the minimum practicable to engender safety and security of the individual. I think it is the scope of "safety and security" that is debatable. In the example you cited, it is entirely possible that Somalia has higher taxes than Scandinavia in that that population also is burdened by the demands of the warlords, though perhaps not in strict monetary terms. Centralized power appropriated by any entity is anathema to freedom. This is the same argument often used against monopolies of any sort. What one is willing to give up for added security is the pertinent question.

So I take it you would agree that the monopolistic power that so many conglomerates exercise today should be curtailed?

Regards,

D-Ray