31
   

How will we pay for it all?

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
So do you think it can continue like it has been going indefinitely? Do you think cutting programs will solve the problem if, as you say, Congress won't use that money to pay down the debt anyway?

Do you think our past war debts were comparable to this one? Do you think it is right to go to war and not expect the citizens of the nation to pay for it?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

People like Miller has great imagination; they hear things not spoken by Barack or Michelle; no different than Bush (and now Palin) hearing the voice of god.


yup. i gotta tell ya; i believe in god, but shet, i'm so tired of hearing about it on every single topic these days.

"well! I am a person of faith!"

woo-hoo! isn't that special? nobody's ever done that before.

i'm not talking about the average person who has a religion that they try to put to use, but the extremists that can't make a peanut butter sandwich with out praying over the damn thing.

anybody who doesn't see that christian extremists are making a push to gain further, and full control of the government and implement "christian law" is either not paying attention or is part of it.

come on... the saddleback church forum with a leading evangelical to answer his religious questions?

off the top of my head, i can only think of one other country where the politicians must be approved by the nation's clerics...IRAN.




0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:34 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Then I would expect the Congress to reduce spending. When might that happen?


good idea... let's start with the most expensive expenditure. iraq.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:39 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

So do you think it can continue like it has been going indefinitely? Do you think cutting programs will solve the problem if, as you say, Congress won't use that money to pay down the debt anyway?

Do you think our past war debts were comparable to this one? Do you think it is right to go to war and not expect the citizens of the nation to pay for it?


FD, you are far too fairminded and sensible to even ask me if I think it can continue like it has been going indefinitely. Of course it can, but it will be to our detriment just as raising taxes when the economy is already in a downturn would be to our detriment. I offered quite a few suggestions re what should happen.

And yes, comparing past economies/GDPs to the current one, all our previous war debts were quite easily comparable to this one.

The question is not whether the citizens of the nation should pay for this war or any war or anything else the government does. The citizens have no choice in that matter. The citizens of the nation provide or assume the debt for every single penny spent by the government. The government does not generate income or wealth of any kind. The government must take from the citizens or obligate the citizens in order to do anything.

It is high time the citizens got smart enough to realize that and demand that the government behave responsibly. It is wrong headed and very short sighted to continue expecting the citizens to just meekly accept whatever the government chooses to do and fork over more and more money for government irresponsibility and/or to expect the government to provide more and more services and goodies for the citizens and think the citizens don't have to pay for that.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

So do you think it can continue like it has been going indefinitely? Do you think cutting programs will solve the problem if, as you say, Congress won't use that money to pay down the debt anyway?

Do you think our past war debts were comparable to this one? Do you think it is right to go to war and not expect the citizens of the nation to pay for it?


FD, you are far too fairminded and sensible to even ask me if I think it can continue like it has been going indefinitely. Of course it can, but it will be to our detriment just as raising taxes when the economy is already in a downturn would be to our detriment. I offered quite a few suggestions re what should happen.

And yes, comparing past economies/GDPs to the current one, all our previous war debts were quite easily comparable to this one.

The question is whether the citizens of the nation should pay for this war or any war or anything else the government does. The citizens of the nation provide or assume the debt for every single penny spent by the government. The government does not generate income or wealth of any kind. The government must take from the citizens or obligate the citizens to do anything.

It is high time the citizens got smart enough to realize that and demand that the government behave responsibly. It is wrong headed and very short sighted to continue expecting the citizens to just meekly accept whatever the government chooses to do and fork over more and more money for government irresponsibility.


I wonder if this includes sharp cuts to defense spending - which represents a gigantic chunk of our budget, and has practically zero oversight?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The government has a mandated Constitutional responsibility to provide for the national defense. There is no Constitutional mandate for many other extremely expensive things that Congress spends money on.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:48 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

The government has a mandated Constitutional responsibility to provide for the national defense. There is no Constitutional mandate for many other extremely expensive things that Congress spends money on.


So? Does that mean that we cannot have oversight of the DoD, and that we are forced to spend so much taxpayer money on it? I don't think you can credibly claim to be a supporter of cutting spending as a way of reducing deficits without acknowledging that we must cut spending on defense as well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:48 pm
revoke the tax exempt status of religious institutions.

that would bring in much needed cash by the trainload. ya know, help pay for bushie's holy crusade in iraq? those faith based initiatives? programs to promote marriage?

and since they have crossed the line into the political forum, they are no longer entitled to tax exemptions anymore than moveon is.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 12:54 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

revoke the tax exempt status of religious institutions.

that would bring in much needed cash by the trainload. ya know, help pay for bushie's holy crusade in iraq? those faith based initiatives? programs to promote marriage?

and since they have crossed the line into the political forum, they are no longer entitled to tax exemptions anymore than moveon is.


Yes. Absolutely. IF the government will give up being in the charity business. Otherwise, make it tougher on religious organizations and the government will have to pick up the slack of the billions spent for many social services provided by those religious organizations. Gee, if you're willing to go to the side that says government cannot allocate charity of any kind to anybody AND give no tax breaks to charitable organizations, we could cut government in half this year. It would heap indescribable hardships and misery on many people, for sure, but it would certainly go a long way to meeting the goal to balance the budget and pay off the debt.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 01:29 pm
@Foxfyre,
i disagree. even without tax exemptions, religious institutions would still have more than enough to do their charitable works.

churches, temples and mosques etc. take in cash hand over fist. but they keep spending the money on things that have more to do with pride than god. a church that has a hundred or so attendees has no need for a church that will hold 2000. a leaking roof certainly needs to be repaired, but how does having the tallest, shiniest gold steeple do anything towards uniting person and god?

for instance, charitable donations of food, clothing and other items that are either distributed directly to the needy (food and/or clothing) or sold to raise cash and also put goods into the hands of those without a lot of cash.

i just donated literally 5 pickup trucks worth of clothing, appliances, furniture and food to a battered women's shelter that's supported by an episcopal church around the corner from my house in tennessee. and i was happy to do it. there's a lot of folks there that have had a hard way to go.

but, even christ said; "render to caesar the things that are caesar's, and to god the things that are god's."

in otherwards, it would seem that christ acknowledged the separation between worldly rule and spiritual rule. there are some americans who seek to make them one in the same. while castigating iran. it's a viewpoint of complete contradiction.

so pay your taxes. if you care to give money to a church, be my guest.

but i fail to see how spending the people's money on stuff like faith based prisons in florida and a 500 million dollar program to promote marriage is anything other than a violation of the first amendment.




Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 02:12 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Sorry but without the tax deduction, many people would not be able to give as much as they do and many would not give at all.

Without the tax exemption, many charitable organizations would need to divert considerable contributions toward paying taxes on their property and would be obligated to pay taxes on any contributions or fees for services rendered or those fees would have to be increased creating additional hardship on the low income people served. Church and Religious based schools, universities, colleges, and those religious organizations that sponsor or operate thrift shops, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, pre-schools and child care services, after school programs, enrichment activities, free or low cost counseling, domestic violence shelters, special projects to supply poor children with backpacks, lunchboxes, school supplies, mittens, coats, socks, and any number of other valuable, worthwhile, and necessary programs and services would be severely hamstrung in their ability to provide services. The sheer paper work and reporting requirements would eat considerably into the profits.

I am speaking as one who has been executive of or otherwise worked for such organizations as a vocation and/or avocation most of my life. Those who are hostile to religion or who have not worked in such programs have no concept of all they do and what a huge void would be left if even 1/4th of these programs were cut back.

I honestly believe that any tax revenues paid to the government would not even come close to the cost of the government having to pick up the slack created by the void that would almost certainly be created. There is no way that not putting religious organizations under govenrment control violates the First Amendment in any way.

To deny religious organizations a tax exemption, however, while allowing it for charities that claim no religious affliation would violate the First Amendment. IAnother thing to consider is that there are precious few charities that are not affiliated with some religion. You find very few Atheists who go into that line of work.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 03:08 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
But perhaps you could inform me in what way the statements are wrong. I'm pretty sure I'm on secure footing there, but I'm open to being tutored.

1) In a capitalistic society, wealth is created both by the government and the private sector. Public infrastructure like roads and bridges are wealth just as a factory is. (Unless it's a sham bridge to nowhere in Alaska -- but then again there are sham private companies like Enron too.) Likewise, public services, like law giving, law enforcement, and public schooling, add value in the same sense as private security companies, private arbitrators, and private schools do.

Unless by "capitalistic society", you mean a 100% pure anarcho-capitalism, government creates part of the wealth in it. The keyword to look up in any econ 101 textbook, including Johnnboy's Samuelson, is titled "public goods".

2) As to the differences in short term and long term benefits when goods are provided by the government as opposed to private companies, the economics textbooks I read are mute on those. Hence my request for a quote.
Runamuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 05:44 pm
@Thomas,
Defend the country and build roads is all I want the Govt to do. I can take care of everything else myself. Defending the country includes police and firefighters but thats a local level.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 05:53 pm
@Thomas,
What Thomas said about infrastructure is true in order to develop any economic progress. Without roads, bridges, and communication, no economy can progress beyond the village or immediate area. They understood that over two thousand years ago when they built and maintained the Silk Road. Without it, economic progress would have been much slower.
bigredsshop
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 10:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Don't you worry about a thing, first lets establish that the new tax on tabaco products is due to suck more life out of the smokers. More bridges will fall , hopefully knowone gets hurt, and that will also come out of the tax payer pockets.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 07:08:39