#5

The number is 73% that want the debt crisis solution to be a combination of tax increases and spending cuts

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148...-open-tax-hikes.aspx

Sure sounds like a spin to me.

G: 830

Princeton       http://www.gallup.com/poll/148...-open-tax-hikes.aspx

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

GALLUP POLL SOCIAL SERIES: CONSUMPTION HABITS

-- FINAL TOPLINE --

Timberline: 927927Job #: 11-07-012

Jeff Jones, Lydia Saad

July 7-10, 2011

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted July 7-10, 2011 with a random sample of –1,016—adults, aged 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of –497—national adults in Form A and –519—national adults in Form B, the maximum margins of sampling error are ±5 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of –897— registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of –170—smokers, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±9 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of –846—non-smokers, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of –666—adults who drink alcoholic beverages, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of –482—Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers, cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, having an unlisted landline number, and being cell phone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the age 18+ non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

 

Skippy

 

This topic is nothing but spin.

Jimbo do you ever have anything of substance to add?

Or are just a knee jerk kinda person?

Skippy

Calling them falsehoods won't turn them into falsehoods.

 

Republicans are space alien invaders.

There...I said it, so it must be true, right?

 

I expect better from you Prop...that's a Jimi response.

 

Me calling them lies and you being flippant and avoiding the subject doesn't change the facts.

 

I don't really care much about what he designates as "Lie #1", to me "Lie #3" should be on top...but anyway...

 

Lie #5 Americans Want a Tax Increase...we've seen that there are various polls that seem to show differing reslults.

 

Lie #4 The Rich Don’t Pay Their Fair Share...it is easily found on IRS website, as asserted above that the top 5% pay 59% of income taxes collected...So do they pay their fair share or don't they?

 

Lie #3 The U.S. Will Default If Congress Doesn’t Raise the Debt Ceiling...this has been shown in other threads...but if Congress doesn't want to default...then don't default.  Roughly $200B comes in monthly to the Treasury and it's about $29B monthly to cover the interest of the debt...So, is it a lie for a politician to say we will default if the debt ceiling isn't raised?

Lie #2 The Bush Tax Cuts Caused the Debt... $1.8T in '03 collected and $2.6T collected in '07...forgetting the partisanship surrounding "tax cuts"...So, specifically, when more revenue was collected in the years after the tax cut and before the collapse, is it a lie to say the tax cuts caused the debt?

Lie #1 Conservatives Who Oppose Raising the Debt Ceiling Are (Insert Insult Here)...I could give two sh**s about this one...but it is telling what Obama is saying about hitting the debt ceiling today as opposed to what he said in '06...So, is he lying now or was he lying then?

 

 

OK, I'll be more cerebral, then. 

 

Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer, once posed this question to someone trying to twist definitions to his own benefit: “How many legs does a dog have?” The reply, of course, was four.

Lincoln then asked, “If we call the tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?” The reply: Five.

“No,” Lincoln said, “Just because you call a tail a leg doesn’t make it so. You can't make something into something it is not just because you decide that is what it should be.”

 

I'll look up the actual poll results later.

 

Cute story, but you seem to miss that "You can't make something into something it is not just because you decide that is what it should be" is exactly the purpose of Flynn's article. 

 

There are actual facts and truths related to the deficit, debt and debt ceiling.

 

"I'll look up the actual poll results later."

 

That's kind of insulting to both Ditto and me...we have links to "actual poll results" above.  What do poll results really matter anyway?  The debt ceiling will be raised.

 

The more interesting questions about actual facts are of those I highlighted above.  There's no spin involved if someone wants to answer the questions honestly.

 

There is an actual provable percentage of the income tax collected that "the rich" pay...it is provable...in light of that fact...Do the rich pay their fair share?

 

It is a fact not spin...the Treasury Dept does bring in a certain amount of revenue...we can divide it by month, quarter, or whatever...but the amount works out roughly to $200B monthly...If someone has a different amount, let's see it.  In light of that fact...interest on the $14T in debt works out to roughly $29B...Do we default if the debt ceiling is not raised?

 

It's seems almost no one can discuss #2 on facts alone...emotions from partisanship over taxes and the simple fact it involves George W. clouds people's thinking.  But we're interested in facts...I'm open if someone can show Federal tax reciepts that are different...but by what I've seen from several cited Treasury reports, the year the tax cuts went into effect, revenue collected was $1.8T and increased each year to $2.6T in '07 before the economic collapse.  In light of the fact that revenue increased, did the tax cuts cause the debt?

 

We all know what Obama is saying about the debt ceiling today...fact, right?  Well it's also a fact that he said this when voting against raising it in '06:

 

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” Senator Obamaexplained in 2006 regarding his vote against raising the debt ceiling. “It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

 

So in light of these two facts, when was Obama lying?



Renegade,

 While i appreciate your zeal in the defense of true liberty, you are off a bit when it comes to the issue of taxes.

As you know, there are many ways of applying taxes. Directly thru legislation and indirectly thru inflation. Inflation is indeed a tax, a tax on the poor and middle class. It has been the policy of government since Bush to provide government services to the people without a direct tax to pay for them. Inflation has been used to cover the shortfall. This inflatuion hits the poor and middle class the hardest because they spend almost all their earnings on necessary good and services.

 The rich on the otherhand are allowed to a better degree to avoid this tax.

 We are much better off being taxed to pay for our government directly, than being taxed thru inflation. Because inflation always continues to go up, so it is a tax that never goes back down, and it creates government debt that cannot be paid.

 

 I say. lets raise taxes.

 

No financial planner, no expert, no economist anywhere would raise their personal credit card limit as a logical means to solve their budget problems without looking at their expense problems first and foremost over their income problems.  One cannot decide one day that since my spending has doubled, my income therefore has to double.  Doesn't work that way with the boss, CANNOT work that way with the Govt or a business.  If you spent too much in the past, you now have to pay for it in the future, there is no way out of it, even with more income.  Raising the debt ceiling is a TAX INCREASE, no matter what is said about it.  The Government MUST spend less EVERY year than is taken in REVENUE and is not entitled to increase the budget by more than COLA. 

 

Unemployment checks need to be picked up at Government Workshop Location where after a Government Work Week of making Government Widgets for sale or Govt use to offset the cost.  Every Government Expense needs to be explored to see if a potential Government Income is possible at least to offset the cost, prisoners being a fine example.  For those of you who laugh at the idea, you are nothing but part of the problem to start with and will never be a part of any viable solution.

 

Abolish the IRS and create a simple tax code, ending all loopholes.  End giveaways except to the needy/unfortunate/incapable, end Social Security Payments to retirees who have more than ample assets upon retirement.  Does a guy with $12 Million in cash upon retirement, need his $3,500 SS check. even if he did pay in?  Abolish the FICA cap limit if necessary just like the Med/Med.  There are a million ways and a million things worthy of cutting but no one from either side is stepping up to the plate.  Yes there will be a Gov't employee or Contractor (Middle Class Welfare) at the end of the cutting line, but so be it.  A capable and willing person is entitled to what one earns, revenue wise, nothing more.  Yes we need clean air, clean water, proper food quality, etc.  Do we really need to study fish, tadpoles?

 

I'm done. 

The debt limit is unConstitutional.  Congress has already authorized all the expenditures that will create the debt, so another vote to approve the debt is not necessary.  OBama should just authorize the Treasury to print the money and let the Congress argue about that instead. 

As you are well aware Ditto, almost all Government Contracts contain a clause that allows for "termination for convenience", no justification is necessary.  So future obligated debt, if under Contract, may simply be un-obligated by termination of contract, quite simple.

The debt limit is unConstitutional.  Congress has already authorized all the expenditures that will create the debt, so another vote to approve the debt is not necessary.  OBama should just authorize the Treasury to print the money and let the Congress argue about that instead. 

 

Once more old Ditzy spouts off in full ignorance mode.  I suggest reading Article 1 Section 8, Clause 2 :"Which grants only congress the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

 

Now, someone will quote Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, conveniently overlooking section 5 that grants Congress the sole authority for enforcing that amendment.

 

I would suggest to Tiny tim, the federal law that makes him personally responsible for paying all unauthorzed debt. 

 

---

 

You make valid points...to some extent I agree with you...but unfortunately they are beside the point and totally avoid the question.

 

Yes, inflation is one of the most insidious, evil things a government can put on the people.  Every time the Fed runs the printing presses or magically adds zeros to their favorite banksters account, it devalues the money in my pocket.  And yes we do understand that a "rich" person can handle the price of gas or milk going up better than someone making 20K a year...obvious and undisputed...but has absolutely nothing to do with "the rich don't pay their fair share".

 

I'll try once more...You say "lets raise taxes".  A perfectly valid point of view, one that I don't necessarily agree with.  But that's OK.  We can talk about it and hash it out.

 

But again, raising or not raising taxes is not the point.  It's not the lie, myth, misconception or whatever you want to call it.  The lie, myth, or misconception is "the rich don't pay their fair share".

 

You well know the debate about taxes is framed by everyone from Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama..."the rich don't pay their fair share".

 

So the question reamains.  In light of the fact that the revenue brought in to the Treasury by income tax receipts, 59% is paid by the top 5% of income earners.  Are they paying their fair share?  If not, what is a "fair share"?

 

Simple question...has nothing to do with whether or not we actually raise taxes, inflation, or the price of tea in China.

 

A trivial detail to be overlooked.

Once the debt ceiling is disregarded, let the Courts settle the matter as they do all questions of Constitutionality. 

Five Falsehoods of the Debt Debate

Renegade Nation  Hall of Famer Yesterday at 4:26 PM

 

Lie #5 Americans Want a Tax Increase
“Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and cuts,” the president claimed Friday. “So the notion that somehow the American people aren’t sold is not the problem. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements.” A poll released the previous day by Rasmussen showed that while a majority of Democrats want a tax increase as part of the deal, just 34 percent of Americans favor one in conjunction with raising the debt ceiling.

 

Key words: “in conjunction with raising the debt ceiling.” You just kind of stuck poll results on the issue of raising the debt ceiling right in the middle of a discussion of revenue increases. It doesn’t belong there. But those two separate issues are tied together only because Congressional Republican leadership insists that they be linked for some reason.

 

Considered as separate issues, the budget and raising the debt ceiling, only 34% wanted them linked. That means that 66% don’t think one has anything to do with the other, have nothing in common, and should not be linked in anyway whatsoever. In other words, raising the debt ceiling should not depend on what is done about the budget.

Now, considered as a separate issue – as it should be – a majority of Americans do support raising taxes on the rich.

 

http://www.cpa-connecticut.com/blog/?p=2509

 

Lie #4 The Rich Don’t Pay Their Fair Share
Obama contended in his Saturday radio address that he merely planned on “asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share” and that “we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest Americans to share in that sacrifice.” Leaving aside whether Obama intends to merely “ask” wealthy Americans for more of their money, there is the subjective question of what constitutes a “fair share.” A study by the Tax Foundation found that America’s richest tenth pays a higher percentage of income taxes than their counterparts in Germany, Japan, Great Britain, and every other similar industrialized nation. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the wealthiest five percent of Americans pays 59 percent of income taxes and the bottom fifty percent pays three percent of income taxes. Who, precisely, isn’t paying their “fair” share?

 

OK, you’ve talked about what percent of income tax each group pays.

 

Now let’s look at what percent of total income each group receives and why so few at the bottom pay tax. The richest 1% of Americans control 34% of our national income, while 90% of the people are left to divide %27% of our income.  The top 10% of income earners controls 71%.

 

http://www.theyoungturks.com/s...u-Didn-t-Get-A-Raise

 

http://floodingupeconomics.wor...tion-by-percentiles/

 

Click the link below; the graph was too big.

http://visualizingeconomics.co...income-distribution/

 

 

Now let’s look at actual income in dollars that everybody gets.

 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes....dont-feel-very-rich/

 

Click for graph (big!) showing number of households at each income level:

http://visualizingeconomics.co...income-distribution/

 

Lie #3 The U.S. Will Default If Congress Doesn’t Raise the Debt Ceiling
The president has repeatedly referred to a failure to raise the debt limit as “Armageddon.” But if the debt ceiling is not raised before it expires the first week of August, it’s not the end of Washington’s money—let alone the end of the world. The U.S. Treasury will claim revenues of aborevenues of $172 billion are enough to cover an interest payment of $29 billion. Not only are the revenues sufficient to pay the interest on the debt, but military salaries, Social Security, and Medicare, too. Dramatic spending cuts would necessarily follow a decision not to raise the debt ceiling. But it’s a lie to equate an act of fiscal responsibility (refusing to allow more borrowing) with one of recklessness (default). 

 

Raising the debt ceiling does not mean that the government is allowed new spending. It does allow more borrowing which allows the government to pay debts it has already incurred.

It’s like the bills are coming due and your income is not enough to pay them all (it's those pesky tax cuts again). You have been charging some on the credit card. But now the limit on the credit card has been reached. Raising the limit would allow you to pay all your bills. It does not allow you to go back out on a new spending spree. Not raising the limit would mean you would have to tell some of those people sending bills that they won’t get paid.

 

Lie #2 The Bush Tax Cuts Caused the Debt
“It turns out that our problem is we cut taxes without paying for them over the last decade,” Obama claimed during Friday’s press conference. But revenues, which had been in decline immediately prior to the enactment of the Bush tax cuts, increased by more than a third soon after the top rates fell from 40 percent to 35 percent. While receipts declined dramatically in the aftermath of the financial/housing crisis, they had increased even more dramatically—$1.8 trillion in 2003 to $2.6 trillion in 2007—in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. As with the Harding/Coolidge, Kennedy/Johnson, and Reagan rate reductions, revenue counterintuitively increased following the Bush tax cuts.

 

That’s only partially true, but only because the Bush Tax cuts did not cause all of the debt. If your spending goes up at the same time your income goes down, income going down (tax cuts) is only part of the story. Here is where the deficits came from.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/articl...-the-federal-deficit

 

http://my.firedoglake.com/wend...kwak-makes-the-case/

 

 

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-...-about-bush-tax-cuts

 

I'm going to leave #1 alone.

 

#1

Repubs that are against the debt increase are just following the orders given by Mcconnell to make every effort to assure OBama is a one term president, regardless of the damage inflicted on the average citizen. 

Everyone that CARES what jmibo says, thinks, etc., please raise your hand!

---

Lie #5 Americans Want a Tax Increase

 

"Now, considered as a separate issue – as it should be – a majority of Americans do support raising taxes on the rich."

 

But that is not the supposed lie...

"Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and cuts," the president claimed Friday.

 

That is what the President said...and as showed by the link to the Rasmussen poll, just 34% favor tax increases...yes, in conjuction with raising the debt ceiliing...that was the question on the poll. And that IS what the President said in his quote...Tied together...as it should be or not...by what the President said.

 

So score that as in fact a lie. I guess we can agree that different results can be obtained depending on how the question is presented.

 

Lie #4 The Rich Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

 

Once again, a lot of purty stuff...that avoids answering the question. Everyone from Hillary, Reid, and Obama say "the rich don't pay their fair share".

 

No graphs needed, it's really simple. The top 5% pay 59% of the income taxes collected. Is that their fair share? If yes, then the lie has been proven. If no, then what would be the "fair share"?

 

Lie #3 The U.S. Will Default If Congress Doesn’t Raise the Debt Ceiling

 

Forgive me for being snotty, but thanks for pointing out the obvious.

　

You said, "Not raising the limit would mean you would have to tell some of those people sending bills that they won’t get paid."

 

Some won't get paid...we only default if Congress decides not to pay the interest on the bonds.

 

Score that one as in fact a lie.

 

Lie #2 The Bush Tax Cuts Caused the Debt

 

Once again a lot of purty stuff...that actually proves the lie...your first graph shows receipts going up from '03 to '07...the years after the tax cut.

 

You said: "If your spending goes up at the same time your income goes down, income going down (tax cuts) is only part of the story."

 

But your graph shows income going up!  And yes! Spending caused the deficit...and W and the Republican congress are fully to blame...

 

Now seriously, it shouldn't matter if tax receipts go up or down, if you spend more than brought in, you get deficits...obvious right? So spending caused deficits.

 

Score #2 as a proven lie.

 

You want to leave #1 alone, that's fine...I feel #3 is the big lie in the bunch anyway. But the quote from Obama in '06 is priceless.

Tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, have never recovered to the year 2000 level.  So, its obvious that the cost of government is going to increase every year, roughly coincident with GDP, yet revenues are declining, which means the revenues have to be increased by some mechanism. 

 

Now, you're just being a barracks lawyer.  Those are usually a danger to those they advise and themselves. 

 

Interesting that you decry conservatives for imperial presidencies, but want to ignore such an obvious usurpation of power.

 

Now, as to your silly statement, "Congress has already authorized all the expenditures that will create the debt, so another vote to approve the debt is not necessary."  NO!  Congress approved the appropriations for FY11, which ends 30 September.  The Treasury has the authority to spend until 30 September, if they can find the cash thru revenue or loans.

 

If you want a trivial detail, here is one:
Most people here don't have a clue about what they are talking about.

---

 

OK, I guess we've batted this back and forth plenty.  But I wanted to focus on this one aspect, one more time because I think it illustrates the premise of the orginal article I posted and what drew my attention to it...And that's debating issues honestly and factually.

 

Never mind that your pizza premise is severely flawed...you are equating "cost" of the "pizza" to cost of government...And you are equating government services to the "pizza".  But you are equating "slices" of pizza to income...very convoluted and doesn't work at all...unless of course you hold the view that nobody actually owns themselves or the fruits of their labors.

 

But again...You fail to answer the simple, basic question...it's asserted that it is a lie to say "The Rich Don’t Pay Their Fair Share"...

 

So again, I pose the question...The top 5% pay 59% of income tax collected, is that their fair share?  If not what would be a fair share?

 

Now understand, it's a simple question...no graphs needed.  And remember the point of the article and my reason for posting it...an honest debate.

 

It's OK if your answer is "no they don't" and "their fair share should be 100%".  I wouldn't agree with it, but at least you would have provided an honest, straightforward answer.

 

 

Their share is whatever is necessary.

For the government to achieve the objectives that the electorate wants it to achieve , the level of funding will have to be made available by the means necessary to do so. 

So, if it means the top earners pay 70% like they did during the largest economic expansion in this countries history so far, then so be it.  Or, maybe the rate should be 39%, or 29%.  The top earners will always pay more, and they will pay what we need them to pay. 

Jimbo do ya ever think what an embarrassment

you are to you fellow socialists?

Skippy is a closet socialist! And I think he is thinking about communism, also.

Gees Jimbo ya got me. Nany Nany

""""""rasberry""""""

Your just a silly little boy.

 

Funny, this chart doesn't look like it's Bush's fault. And the only time the limit was exceeded was during Clinton's admin.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/c...photo-232631431.html

Debt and deficits done matter. At least not lately. 

When Reagan cut taxes and say the huge deficits that were going to be created, he raised taxes.  Six times.  Same story with BushI.  When BushIIe was angling to go to War with Iraq because some Afghanis had attacked the US, he cut taxes, and increased spending. 

Hence, there is no reason to believe that the Repubs will be the fiscal conservatives they proclaim themselves to be. 

We're all scrooed no matter how you look at it, so we might as well max out the credit cards while we can, cause default will one day be the only option.  Then, it wont matter if we owe $16trillion or $18trillion. 

Dear House GOP Member: Raise the Debt Ceiling. Love, Ronald Reagan

 

Dana Milbank had a provocative column this morning arguing that on the debt ceiling, Dems have become the new party of Ronald Reagan, and that Republicans only honor their alleged hero Reagan in the breach and not the observance. After all, Reagan presided over 18 debt ceiling hikes as President. But for a large swath of today’s House conservatives, the drive to prevent the debt ceiling from being hiked has replaced the now-forgotten push to repeal Obamacare as their number one ideological cause celebre.

Now House liberals have hit on a fun new way of emphasizing this point: They are sending a letter today to every House Republican asking them to raise the debt limit. Only the letter wasn’t written by House liberals. It was written by Reagan himself.

Here’s the text of the letter Reagan wrote to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker in 1983, a copy of which is being hand delivered from the Congressional Progressive Caucus to every House Republican this afternoon:

Dear Howard:

This letter is to ask for your help and support, and that of your colleagues, in the passage of an increase in the limit on the public debt.

As Secretary Regan has told you, the Treasury’s cash balances have reached a dangerously low point. Henceforth, the Treasury Department cannot guarantee that the Federal Government will have sufficient cash on any one day to meet all of its mandated expenses, and thus the United States could be forced to default on its obligations for the first time in its history.

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the cost, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

I want to thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent problem and for your assistance in passing an extension of the debt ceiling.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

 

Call this a gimmick if you must, but it’s in keeping with the Dems’ broader strategy: Appropriating Reagan’s legacy in the debt limit fight as their own. Dems recently releasedaudio of a 1987 radio address in which Reagan urged a debt ceiling hike. ”The United States has a special obligation to itself and the world to meet its obligations,” Reagan says in the address. For good measure, Reagan even cast avoiding default as key to — wait for it — American exceptionalism.

 

I don’t imagine that House Dems actually think the words of Reagan will sway some of today’s Tea-infused House conservatives. But they are hoping that the specter of Reagan repeatedly urging a debt ceiling hike for the good of America will emphasize to everyone else just how extreme and ideologically rigid the House conservative position has become.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/20-17

 

Nice letter but one major difference between then and now:

 

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world.

 

That isn't true anymore.

Again with the self referential barbs... I see therapy in your future...

Hmmm... freal?

 

 

Never mind that your pizza premise is severely flawed...you are equating "cost" of the "pizza" to cost of government...And you are equating government services to the "pizza".  But you are equating "slices" of pizza to income...very convoluted and doesn't work at all...unless of course you hold the view that nobody actually owns themselves or the fruits of their labors.

 

Everybody's "fair share" depends on what kind of insurance policy you are willing to pay for (more about that later.)

 

The "pizza" is not government services; it is the total amount of income earned in the country by everybody earning income. If it helps, think of a big pile of money on the table instead of a pizza. How many slices each gets reflects the amount of that income each group gets.

 

Government services is the restaurant itself. In other words, if the restaurant didn't cook the pizza for you, you would have to cook it yourself. Examples of a government services are the court system for the peaceful resolution of disputes; paved roads so your don't get stuck in the mud; clean water to drink, sewer service to carry away the waste, and garbage pickup (if that is provided; I know many rural areas don't). Are you prepared to do all that yourself?

 

Yes, the "cost of the pizza" is the "cost of government" -- if nobody paid their bill, the place would go out of business. I know people like Grover Norquist would be pleased if the pizza parlor (government and all its services) were reduced to selling candy bars out of a basket by a street vendor.

 

But back to the waiter bringing the bill. Those who derive the most benefit should bear the most cost. And don't think government doesn't play a large role in your ability to do anything in what we call "civilized society." Those who receive the most should receive the larger share of the bill. You should know we won't have a government without taxes.

 

Without taxes there would be no private property. The government enforces your private property rights. If you want to try to defend your property without the law to back you up, go right ahead. If government could not intervene effectively, and government won't exist without taxes, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected. It would be Dodge City before the marshal got there.

 

Homeowners do not depend only on fire and police departments and the registry of titles and deeds.

Government does not "merely" protect property; it also defines and assigns property, setting forth the maintenance and repair obligations of landlords, for instance, and deciding whether the employer or the employee "owns" the inventions of the employee. Who do you think should be entrusted with assigning broadcasting rights? 

 

Who decides, in the United States, how to allocate our scarce public resources for the protection of which rights for whom? What principles are commonly invoked to guide these allocations? Who decides whether and to what extent common resources like air and water can be polluted and, if there are penalties for doing so, what should they be? And can those principles be defended in a court of law instead of "might makes right"? It is a fiction that people enjoy and exercise their rights without government power standing by to intervene if called upon.

 

Rights to private property, freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, contractual liberty, free exercise of religion -- are taxpayer-funded and government-managed social services designed to improve collective and individual well-being. Those are your rights. Why? The Constitution, enforced by the government, says so.

It may be reasonable, in some cases, to cut tax rates. I have said in the past that if, once everything we expect government to do has been provided, there is a surplus, then the government is taxing too much. But if there is a deficit, government is taxing too little. What is unreasonable and, in fact, preposterous is the all-too-familiar conservative rhetoric that constantly portrays the government power to tax and spend as something that opposes individual liberty. You cannot be for rights and against government because rights are meaningless unless enforced by government. 

Less taxes means less government services, and one of those services is the protection of your rights.

All of those rights taken together, enforced by government, are what enables some to grab a larger portion of the pizza. If that larger portion of pizza is what you mean by a person being entitled to keep the "fruits of their labor," then they must be prepared to pay for the ability to do it. 

Otherwise, without the government to enforce his right to that portion of the pizza, somebody at the next table might just knock him out of chair and take all his slices. Government is like insurance: You might gripe about the cost, be it sure comes in handy when you need it.

 

 

 

Skippy has yet to deny that he is a closet socialist. Hmmm mm mm.