Is Obama Really the Liberal Reagan?

Response to Curt of DE

If I thought I could dictate where my taxes go, as you do w/ your 7%, I might think that was a fair comparison.

[Actually, when you donate to charities, you don't know where the money is going. Lots of time it goes to inflated CEO salaries, lobbying efforts, or administrative waste. But you dentate anyway with the hope that at least a certain % gets to programs you appreciate, because generally, the highest percentage gets spent on outreach. Same applies to the federal government, if you want it to be a charity. Some % goes to things you don't approve of, but the largest % by far goes to entitlements, which are charity. So for every dollar you send in, at least half is going to "help" people. So nice try, but not buying it.]

You also know that your charities can not force you or your children to pay more later on when their deficit spending forces them.

[Exactly why government spending should go back to what was intended by our constitution. Minimal. Because you are using force to collect taxes. Force is necessary, but should be minimized, and therefore, so should taxation as an extension of force.]

Would you still give 7% to those same charities if you faced that?

[I already do, as stated above. But I chose charities because they are far better at what they do than the feds. Plus, it is CHARITY. Freely given. Not forced. However, if I believed in the "helping" power of the federal government, I would "donate" to them because they have a larger organization capable of "helping" more people. But I am not a statist.]

We owe a lot of money. My exact point was that we should all pay, not just the rich. But, no, I do not want pay my share twice.

[What exactly is "your share"? When you create a tax system that is based on a subjective definition of fairness, nothing is off limits. Which is why we soak the rich. They have so much, so why not? But if Uncle Sam came to YOU and said you don't pay enough, I am sure you would scream bloody murder, even though you pay much, much, less than the rich, and a lower percentage to boot.

However, if you rolled government back to what it SHOULD be, you would be able to collect your taxes through usage fees and indirect taxes, a much fairer way all around. Don't want to pay more taxes? Use less services.

Honestly, I don't get how 40% of the population can receive services and pay NOTHING and we call this a fair system (in fact, they actually get paid to use those services, something we call the earned income tax credit). People used to have pride; they would take nothing given because they felt shame; they felt they should EARN it. Now nothing is off limits. Let's have some bureaucrat in Washington write a check and send it off and you don't even have to look someone in the eye and show gratitude (like you do at a charity). You just take. And the crazy thing is, people think they DESERVE it. They really think they are "suffering". And by suffering, they mean they can't buy the newest Brittany Spears CD or eat out as much or have digital cable. Want to see true suffering? Look at the homeless; look at people in Africa. Now THAT is suffering. Want to help people? Help them. Through charity. Not through forced redistributions.]

This has no relevance to my charitable donations or volunteering so I'm not sure you're final assumptions of me helps your argument.

[I think there is relevance. I don't know you, but I know the liberal mindset through years of experience. And it's largely true that liberals donate less. I can only assume they rely on government to take care of this for them, seeing as they "care" so much about the less fortunate. Take a look at this charity's tracking of giving by states:

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

Notice a pattern? The most generous states are the poorest states, meaning they give a higher % even while they have less. These states are also, by any definition, not liberal states. Check recent presidential election results for confirmation.

Now "red" state giving I am sure is largely religious. But you know who provides most of the charitable services in these states? Churches. So the giving is reaching people; it's helping people.

Some other anecdotal evidence to consider. The aftermath of Katrina. Note the community response in Mississippi, where the community as whole organized, took care of their own, and didn't complain nationally. Compare that with the response in New Orleans, one of the most liberal cities in America, where government programs have created a culture of victimization. I'm guessing you remember them blaming everyone but themselves for their challenges?]

EDR of FL @ Feb 15, 2008 12:57:04 PM

Curt of DE

EDR's comments are still valid...nobody is stopping anyone from paying more taxes...and those who scream that we should do EVERYTHING they can with their accountants, etc to pay as little as they can..which is fine....

There was a national debate on what the Govt should and shouldn't do...it happened WAY back in the late 1700's...resulted in this thing called the Constitution....unfortunately, starting with FDR the Feds started ignoring it.

Your SURPLUS under Clinton was mostly the result of policies instituted by Reagan and a Republican Congress....and if you recall for most of the Clinton years the Repubs controlled congress(remember, congress decides what money is spent, etc)....and those surpluses were the result of an expanding economy bringing in more tax revenue..NOT from any major tax increases.....of course, in those same years you didn't see any Democrats clammering for spending cuts to increase those surpluses...instead they saw that extra money and said, "Hey, let's spend it like we're always gonna have it ten years out"...and the Republicans too started losing their way and saw that they too can promise the world to the ignorant electorate to gain power.

And that is where we are today...to vote Dem in the hopes they will but the deficit is laughable....Obama is ALREADY talking about paying for his 210 billion dollar program by using the money we spend in Iraq(Which we don't have in the first place...it's all borrowed) and from taxing the rich more(which will just drive down overall revenue as the economy will shrink...tax cuts grow the economy...always have...tax hikes have always hurt it)....NO WHERE is OBAMA(or any Republican candidate for that matter) talking about SHRINKING the fed govt, getting spending under control, cutting back on entitlements that will surely bankrupt us all, etc. SO keep blaming the Repubs and supporting the Dems...just like the other side keeps supporting the Repubs(who aren't even that anymore)....we're all heading towards collapse

Jim Jones of KS @ Feb 15, 2008 11:35:16 AM

It's a simple point I tried to make in answer to EDR's original question- on why noone pays taxes unsolicited. Why Bush said if people want to pay more taxes, the IRS accepts checks and money orders. If I do that I will also have to do it later w/ everyone else. Yes, I understand the rich pay more, not sure where in the above I said otherwise.

I have felt for a long time that there should be a national debate on what the government should do and shouldn't do but once it's decided, pay for it.

I'm going to take a dare here; there was an actual surplus under Clinton. Not in the out years but actual. Unfortunately, in recent years the only time spending goes down is when taxes go up - if only for the compromise. Happened w/ Bush I and w/ Clinton. I agree that both parties are complicit but one party is worse and I'm going to vote against them.

Seeing you're so good at judging me without knowing me, I'll take Braniac as a complement.

Curt of DE @ Feb 15, 2008 06:36:02 AM

Curt of De...

You say "we owe a lot of money"......

As a individual...and maybe even a head of a household...when you "owe a lot of money" isn't one of the first things you do is CUT SPENDING! You seem to have no problem with the govt spending more and more money...creating more programs that grow and grow always costing more than originally sold to us....and your answer is "Hey, let's just tax the rich more." Where are you in saying to the Dems(and the Repubs) to cut spending? To tell the American people to grow up and not rely and EXPECT the govt to pay for everything including their retirement, healthcare, etc etc(and yes, not to blow 1 trillion dollars in Iraq).

I ask you this:

Would you rather live in your own home or Public Housing?

Would you rather drive your car or take Public buses?

Would you rather eat out or at some soup kitchen?

Would you rather use your own doctor or some inner city free clinic?

Would you rather rely on your own investments for retirement or Social Security?

Would you rather send your daughter to public school or private school?

If your honest you'd choose the private solution to all these problems yet you(and statists like you in both parties) LOVE to expand govt and are itching to have them provide "free" health care...as if ANYTHING the govt has every done hasn't ended up in one big cluster F.

You say to EDR or FL:

I'm willing to pay more taxes but I want a shared sacrifice.

REALLY....AS IF, AS EDR POINTS AT WITH FACTS, THE "RICH" AREN'T PAYING ANY TAXES...THEY PAY MORE THAN YOU MY FRIEND...MUCH MORE.

My daughter and her generation face higher taxes or worse due to the debt Republicans have given us.

RIGHT...AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE JUST CLAMMERING TO CUST SPENDING AREN'T THEY? PLEASE, STOP THIS POLITICAL PARTISAN BS AND SEE THAT BOTH PARTIES ARE NOW JUST FIGHTING EACHOTHER TO SEE WHO CAN BUY THE MOST VOTES WITH GOVT HANDOUTS. THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME NOW..SPEND SPEND SPEND AND LET'S MAKE THE GOVT BIGGER AND BIGGER.

I could pay extra taxes by myself or invest for her to help her deal with this. I choose the latter, she should not sacrifice alone. If everyone paid it would lessen the burden on this next generation.

EVERYONE IS PAYING BRANIAC...THE "RICH" PAY MUCH MORE THAN YOU...BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE STATISTS LIKE YOU WANT MORE AND MORE GOVT HANDOUTS WHICH MEANS MORE AND MORE SPENDING..SO YOUR DAUGHTER IS ROYALLY F'D JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.

Why do Republicans insist on buying things and then ask our kids to pay for it?

AGAIN...SHOW ME WHERE THE DEMS ARE CUTTING SPENDING....YOU'LL RESPOND THAT THEY ONLY SPEND WHEN THEY TAX MORE TO PAY FOR IT...WHICH ISN'T TRUE. AND DON'T YOU DARE POINT TO ANY BS "BUDGET SURPLUSES" IN CLINTONS TIME...THOSE WERE JUST PROJECTIONS 10 YEARS OUT AND ARE MEANINGLESS. THAT'S LIKE TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOUR OVERSPENDING BY SAYING, "WELL, I'VE BEEN GETTING A 10% RAISE EVERY YEAR SO I CAN SPEND 10% MORE THAN I HAVE NOW SINCE I'LL BE GETTING THAT MONEY NEXT YEAR."

BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY...BOTH HAVE BECOME THE SAME BEAST....THEY GET THEIR POWER BY PROMISING THE PEOPLE THINGS THEY CAN'T AFFORD....

RDK of DC @ Feb 15, 2008 00:59:00 AM

EDR,

If I thought I could dictate where my taxes go, as you do w/ your 7%, I might think that was a fair comparison. You also know that your charities can not force you or your children to pay more later on when their deficit spending forces them. Would you still give 7% to those same charities if you faced that? We owe alot of money. My exact point was that we should all pay, not just the rich. But, no, I do not want pay my share twice.

This has no relevance to my charitable donations or volunteering so I'm not sure you're final assumptions of me helps your arguement.

Curt of DE @ Feb 14, 2008 20:43:49 PM

To Curt of DE

Curt of DE,

What a typical BS rationalization. I donate about 7% of my paycheck to charity because I know it helps people. Should I only be willing to donate if others are? Should I withhold my donations until EVERYONE is willing to donate to my local homeless shelter? In essence, you are wimping out. You are letting OTHER people set the your standard for caring. You only help if other people do. Otherwise you won't help at all. No conviction.

While I don't agree at all with our government being the world's largest charitable organization, that is what it has become. And that is what people who believe in redistribution want it to become. A government that HELPS people. Which is by definition charity. So as long as you believe government should be charitable, then you should be willing to donate whatever you can (in the form of taxes) in order to aid it in helping people. But you don't. Which brings me back to my initial assertion: you want someone else to do it for you. Most are for Obama's programs because they will fall squarely on the rich. Because they don't have to pay. What courage!

BTW, partisan attacks won't affect me. I'm an independent libertarian. Blame one side all you want, but you know that BOTH parties have been complicit in what our system has become. We've had divided government for the better part of the past 30 years, which means that both sides have to acquiesce to get anything done. Anyone with a basic knowledge of civics knows that. But you want someone to blame? Look in the mirror. Governments have only given us what the majority of people have demanded. The majority want more programs but only if someone else pays. Since soaking the rich only goes so far, and the majority isn't willing to pay for the programs it demands, you get deficits.

Curt, next time you see someone on the street that needs help, you might actually try HELPING that person instead of avoiding eye contact and going on with your life. Of course it's easier to let someone else do it for you.

EDR of FL @ Feb 14, 2008 10:09:41 AM

To EDR of FL,

To answer your question about paying extra taxes and W's silly State of the Union line about the I.R.S. accepting checks and money orders:

I'm willing to pay more taxes but I want a shared sacrifice. My daughter and her generation face higher taxes or worse due to the debt Republicans have given us. I could pay extra taxes by myself or invest for her to help her deal with this. I choose the latter, she should not sacrifice alone. If everyone paid it would lessen the burden on this next generation.

Why do Republicans insist on buying things and then ask our kids to pay for it?

Curt of DE @ Feb 13, 2008 21:41:01 PM

The Pizza Pie

Gdubs of UT,

Wow. I am just astounded. You missed the entire point of post. No matter what your reasoning, once you start envying the fat guy you end up with socialist pizza and EVERYONE is worse off in the long run. The pizza get smaller, society does not progress technologically, and everyone suffers.

Why does the fat guy get to be fat? Because he works hard to create the pizza in the first place. He gets to eat more because he contributes more. And the skinny guys are still better off because they get a piece of a bigger pizza. The pizza grows in capitalism! Yes, there is an "eating" gap. But the fat guy gets to be fat because he works to create the bigger pizza. He has earned the right to eat more pizza. And, hopefully, he also chooses to "give back" to society through charity (newsflash...the lower the taxes, the more people give to charities...the US is by far the most charitable nation on earth). Charity is real kindness. It's from the heart.

People like you are more concerned about the "eating gap" than they are with the fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens are better off in the capitalist pizza than the socialist one. So, you say, what about the small number of citizens who "can't compete" because of whatever limitation (e.g. the homeless who have mental issues)? What about those who are worse off in a capitalist society because they somehow just can't "eat" well? We address that through charity. Through honest-to-goodness kindness, not government mandates that are enforced through the threat of violence (just try NOT paying your taxes because you think the system is "unfair" and see where you end up...first you get threatening notices...then the police show up to seize your property and throw you in jail).

The people are responsible for taking care of other people. Yes that's us. WE THE PEOPLE. This is not a job to be delegated to the federal government just because we don't want to do it. You can spend hours arguing with people and putting labels on them (You're a meanie! You're a conservative!). Or you can donate to charities and actually volunteer to help people. For those who choose not to donate and volunteer, it's their loss. I will tell you it has added a lot to my life. And I can be charitable while not envying other people what they have. Imagine that.

Governments exist to ensure our freedom and to provide for goods that everyone benefits from (roads, defense, perhaps national parks, environment, etc.). They do not exist to take from one group to give to another. Once government gets in the business of redistribution, it's crossed over a boundary into illegitimacy.

You see, in a free society, government gets its powers from the people. It can't do anything that that the people cannot. One good example? Capital punishment. We as a society have said that murder is wrong (which is almost any killing outside of self-defense) and we prevent our people from committing murder. So how can the government engage in murder? It can't. It's a self-contradiction. We do it, but it's wrong. If anyone doubts this, then tell me why we don't just let immediate family members put together a posse and hang the local killer. We don't allow this because we consider murder to be wrong. It doesn't become right because a jury or judge says it is. Anyway, enough digression.

Taxation. Society cannot exist without it in some form. While almost all taxation involves forced payment on the part of citizens, it's one thing to do this for common services from which we all benefit. This is something the Colonies agreed to when they ratified the constitution. They agreed to a very limited centralized government for the common good. But they denied it the power of direct taxation. Why? Because the Colonies knew their history. They knew that a powerful central government invariably lead to tyranny.

Redistribution is the beginning of tyranny, no matter how well intentioned people may be. It's not a right that individuals have. So how can the people delegate something they don't have to the government? To put this in the simplest terms, if I can't go into an alley and say to someone "give me most of your money", why can Uncle Sam? Even if I am going to take your money and give it to someone else who has less, we still consider robbery wrong. Why? Because we respect property rights. Property rights are the foundation of a free and successful society. You know what's wrong with 95% of the countries in the world? Not tribalism, or resources or even inefficient governments. It's PROPERTY RIGHTS. As long as people feel that they are not going to be entitled to the fruits of their labor, as long as they feel someone may one day just take everything they have willy-nilly, you don't have a stable society, and it will never progress. It's all about motivation. Once you suck the motivation out of a society, it's dead.

EDR of FL @ Feb 13, 2008 18:20:17 PM