Romney: We have too many teachers, cops, and firemen. Fire them!

maxpower1227 said:
Why are you banging on about this so much? There are states that give more than they get back from the feds in tax dollars. But there are also states that get more back than they give. The fact that CA gets back $0.78 for every dollar doesn't mean that they are "losing" 22% of their taxes, it means that they are helping to prop up the more impoverished states. As others have pointed out: we are all in this together. Your argument that CA should just pay for its own needs and save $0.22 on the dollar is missing the point.
Click to expand...
Actually it means that certain large military bases suck up a lot of tax revenue and they are located in discrete states. New Mexico does well because of the ginormous federal laboratory there while the state has a relatively small population.

But much of the money sent to Washington stays there, it never comes back to any state. The return to the states as an aggregate will always be negative.

But if you want to compare aid to states based on federal assistance (as opposed to military bases and such) the list of "winners" may surprise you. New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts all collect more per capita than Mississippi and Louisiana. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...ot-s_n_492411.html#s73141&title=1_District_of
 
Last edited:
maxpower1227 said:
Do you think this should be the case? The prison industry being run for-profit is probably a leading factor in this nation being the world leader at throwing people in jail, which is certainly a rather dubious honor to hold.
Click to expand...
There are risks with private prisons (what stops the mob from operating a prison?). But those risks occur with government prisons as well. I don't see that private prisons are more likely than government prisons to promote incarceration. The prison guard union in California opposed marijuana decriminalization. The US has led the world in incarceration for years. This predates the widespread use of for-profit prisons, seems to me. The Soviet Union imprisoned its entire population, and that government did not use private prisons. "Profit" is a book-keeping term: the difference between total revenues and total costs. An organization which has no line in its balance sheet for profit must attribute all revenues to costs. People do not become more intelligent, more altruistic, better-informed, or more capable when they enter the State's employ.
 
WildCat said:
Can you explain the value of an unnecessary middleman who charges 22%?
Click to expand...

That wasn't what your example was demonstrating; purchasing a service is not an "unnecessary middleman", unless you think the post should be free. Do you see why I say you could do better? I hope you do.
 
elbe said:
That wasn't what your example was demonstrating; purchasing a service is not an "unnecessary middleman", unless you think the post should be free. Do you see why I say you could do better? I hope you do.
Click to expand...
It's unnecessary because everyone would be better off keeping their own money.
 
BenBurch said:
No, that is direct Federal control of the schools. Busing. EEOC. Etc. Went on for decades afterward.

You say you are against direct federal control of the schools.

Which is it? Jim Crow, or the Freedom Bus. No third choice here.
Click to expand...
Still makes no sense. You may as well say because schools can't use slave labor the Feds have control over them.
 
WildCat said:
Still makes no sense. You may as well say because schools can't use slave labor the Feds have control over them.
Click to expand...

No, that was not in direct regard to the schools but to society in general, and is in any case not federal policy of any sort, but Constitutional.

Brown v Board of Education was directly about the policy of the Topeka school board. The court was setting policy for Topeka (and for everybody else by extension.) Direct orders of which children go to which schools.
 
WildCat said:
It's unnecessary because everyone would be better off keeping their own money.
Click to expand...

Economically, yes, but at worst your imaginary people just make poor decisions*, a burden your saddled on them, by voluntarily purchasing a service they may not have needed. That does not, however, demonstrate an unnecessary middleman, just a service you deem to be unnecessary that they, apparently, did not.

Seriously, WildCat, I don't want to get into a debate about the merits of taxation on multiple levels, or whatever, I just don't think you have this example much thought and it just doesn't work.

* And since, once again, basic economics demonstrates that people purchase goods/services because they feel what they get in return is worth at minimum the value they paid into it, I can think of at least one reason why your silly little group would do that - they think it's worth 22 cents per letter to show each other that they care about their friendships.
 
WildCat said:
Well there you go, it was part of federal program to get local schools to do things the feds way.

The difference here is this is being billed as a jobs program. And these jobs are presumably permanent ones, what happens if the federal spigot stops? Does the fed pay their salaries for one year? 2? 20? Forever (once these things get started they develop an inertia that's hard to stop)?


Then I have no use for you! :p
Click to expand...
I take these remarks in the spirit in which I think they were intended. (And that's a GOOD thing!)

Again, I haven't read all of the posts, but the real problem, it seems to me, is one that everyone seems to ignore. People in general, and citizens in particular, are hypocritical skinflints. They demand government services but don't want to pay for them. A related principle is this: people like dumping on their neighbors (and especailly like dumping on the neighbors with whom they don't have to interact), but despise being dumped upon by others; consequently, they don't mind passing the bills they've rung up onto others, but they do mind immensely if they feel they are being compelled to pay someone else's bills.

These simple observations explain many of the complexities of modern-day tax structure. People sorta want a better public education system (although there are quite a few who, after getting THEIR own public education, don't feel obliged in any way to help pay for education of others), but they are more strongly opposed to paying taxes that will pay for a good public education system. What a difference it makes when the federal government sends some federal dollars to help out! Now, of course the federal dollars are really tax dollars from citizens, but somehow it SEEMS as though it is someone else's money. And it is this sort of sleight-of-cash that makes the funding of needed services possible. There are other sleight-of-cash techniques that can be used as well, to make it APPEAR that people aren't paying for what they really are paying for. Whether employing sleight-of-cash is right or wrong is beside the point; in today's environment, sleight-of-cash is a practical necessity.

If a candidate is going to say that people ought to pay locally for services they consume locally (in other word, if the candidate is going to condem sleight-of-cash techniques), then that candidate also has to explain how such services would be supplied when selflish two-faced skinflints get to call the shots about tax structure.
 
Brown said:
...

Again, I haven't read all of the posts, but the real problem, it seems to me, is one that everyone seems to ignore. People in general, and citizens in particular, are hypocritical skinflints. They demand government services but don't want to pay for them. A related principle is this: people like dumping on their neighbors (and especailly like dumping on the neighbors with whom they don't have to interact), but despise being dumped upon by others; consequently, they don't mind passing the bills they've rung up onto others, but they do mind immensely if they feel they are being compelled to pay someone else's bills.

...
Click to expand...

Actually, that has been my premise too. I think the people who want to slime out of paying for things gravitate to the GOP in the present climate of political polarization, and those who don't mind paying their share become Democrats.
 
BenBurch said:
Actually, that has been my premise too. I think the people who want to slime out of paying for things gravitate to the GOP in the present climate of political polarization, and those who don't mind paying their share become Democrats.
Click to expand...
Other folks have said the same thing, notably Bill Maher, who has compared GOP pronouncements about lower taxes as tantamount to "skipping out on the check."

Putting the best face on it, the notion is not that we should run up bills and then refuse to pay, but that there should be more honesty and transparency in public funding. It's a great notion, but human nature being what it is, it is awfully damned hard to put into practice.

As "bad" as governments are with transparency in finance, private enterprise is far, far worse. The odd acts of the government can't even begin to match private companies' hidden fees, bait-and-switch practices, predatory pricing, fine print, cross-subsidies, phony bargains, outrageous puffery, and other shamelessly disgraceful and dishonest marketing techniques. Want to sell your product or service honestly at a fair price? Good luck with that! Your competitors will run a coupon scam or a phony sale or a worthless promotion or will put "50% OFF" signs on everything or otherwise will use one of the many recognized marketing practices to run your silly ass out of business. It won't matter that you provide a better product or service, or even that customers ACTUALLY get a great deal; what matters is that they THINK they're getting a better deal from someone other than you. Don't like it? Your complaint is with "human nature," and human beings are full of it (human nature, I mean).
 
BenBurch said:
I'm pretty sure I pay for every dime of those things. And if that isn't enough, I am happy to have taxes I pay raised.

I am not a 1%er, but I am a 10%er, and I pay a lot of tax and am willing to pay more.
Click to expand...


I'm with you. Sometimes it feels like I'm paying my own way and a couple others as well.

I was just poking some fun at the 'pay your own way' crowd down in Madison that pitched a fit when told they'd have to start 'paying their own way'.
 
Howie Felterbush said:
I'm with you. Sometimes it feels like I'm paying my own way and a couple others as well.

I was just poking some fun at the 'pay your own way' crowd down in Madison that pitched a fit when told they'd have to start 'paying their own way'.
Click to expand...

When issues get polarized, each side becomes ridiculous.

But when we are talking about pensioners who had a contract and worked their whole lives in public service being told that they are not going to get the pension they were promised, we have a problem. I am for paying what things cost, but I am not for reneging on a signed contract.
 
BenBurch said:
When issues get polarized, each side becomes ridiculous.

But when we are talking about pensioners who had a contract and worked their whole lives in public service being told that they are not going to get the pension they were promised, we have a problem. I am for paying what things cost, but I am not for reneging on a signed contract.
Click to expand...

Act 10 didn't eliminate pensions, it increased the amount people had to contribute (up to about six percent, if memory serves me correctly).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom