revel wrote:I just plain don't understand how people expect a government to run itself if there is no money in it. Conversely it is these same people chanting war all the time. I guess they expect the money for that to fall from the sky like manna. I guess they expect money for domestic spending to fall from the sky or paying for the military, schools, police officers, emergency responders, homeland security, bridges and highways and roads...
It probably is more fair for a flat tax to be used; but it would then make the economy more poor because the middle class and those making little money but not on welfare would not have enough money to spread it around in the economy. Yet we got to get the money to run the nation from somewhere or run the risk of having our nation be degraded as it seems to be heading.
Many of the things you mention: schools, police officers, emergency responders, most bridges highways and roads, etc ARE NOT the responsibility of the FEDERAL government.
The federal government has relatively few responsibilities delegated to it under the Constitution.
The rest of these are the responsibility of the cities, the counties, the states, etc
Federal taxation needs to be decreased in order to free up money for local govt entities to perform their functions.
Presidential candidates who promise more police officers, more teachers (or higher pay for teachers), etc are WAY overstepping the bounds of their authority.
See, we don't have 'a government' that must operate.
We have many.
Separation of powers, and delegation of tasks to different levels of authority is part of the genius of the American system.
We don't want cities to be a sub-department of the federal government. Same thing with states and counties.
As long as we let presidential candidates get away with making themselves look good by talking about schools, infrastructure and police, then we are sinking our own boat.
