Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Craig234
I disagree. I think that it's unfair, and the only 'fair system' is a progressive tax system. Most Americans, now and historically, seem to agree with me, happily.
Of course they agree with you. The majority of this country is not rich, therefor they will vote for the politician who promises them money. You dont bive money to the rich, you give it to the middle class and poor. So no, the progressive tax is in fact NOT fair. EVERY American benefits from the Federal Government, so why then should some pay more for that? But that extends into the problem of what our government does......
I really think you misunderstand the purpose of taxes. It's not to 'tax' in some fair way involving how many showers you take. It's simply to say "we need X dollars to pay for the cost of our society's government, and we want to tax in ways that are both practical - you can't get blood from a turnip - and which are best in terms of economic and mora al effects." Unfortunately, that ideal is corrupted by the fact that every interest wants to pay less, and tax that fellow behind the tree.
The purpose of taxes as originally porposed was to support the basic operations of the federal government. That is to maintain a standing army and regulate interstate commerce.
However aat some point past that taxes became nothing more then a program to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have nots. If you were familiar with the federal budget you would see this as you would know that social programs as a whole represent the largest line item in the budget. In fact, they account for roughly 50% of the entire federal budget. Simply put, if the federal government was doing what it was originally designed to do the federal budget would instantly be cut over 50%. More then likely you would see upwards of a 75% drop.
That's one factor, which right-wing ideologues hugely exaggerate and distort to the point that programs that are very helpful at increasing productivity are demonized.
Social Security slashed elder poverty from 90% to 10%; Republicans opposed it as 'unworkable'. Medicare has greatly reduced the problem of the elderly and poor having untreated medical problems; Republians opposed it as 'not the right solution'. The Great Society slashed the long-term poverty rate by a third; Republicans opposed it as 'creating dependancy', not without *some* truth democrats acknowledged, but with exaggeration hiding the overall success of the policies. And there are a lot more where those came from.
Look, here's some perspective for you on the facts versus the right-wing ideology you appear to have fallen victim to on the 'baiout is welfare' topic.
Just take the current $750B bailout (not counting the fact it's really already closer to $2 trillion and expected to grow a lot), to pay for the failures of the private 'deregulation'.
Courtesy of Harper's Index:
- Percentage by which the $750 billion bailout exceeds the total U. S. GDP of a century ago, adjusted for inflation: 50
- Percentage by which it exceeds the entire cost of the New Deal: 33
Factor by which it exceeds the cost of the 1990 saving-and-loan bailout: 3
Of course, that last bailout was yet another 'wefare' bailout for the failure of de-regulation.
We could go on - for example, the 'welfare costs' of the US military and foreign policy serving US corporate interests, often at large cost to taxpayers much less the foreigners.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
- U. S. Marine General Smedley Butler
It seems to me that you have an ignroant, emotional, and harmful response to social programs, causing you to fixate on them both to exaggerate their cost while being blind to the real corruption and waste, and to underestimate their benefit - both economic and moral.
See my post above. Doesnt matter, as most of what you cite is NOT the job of the federal government as originally intended. Taxes have become nothing more then a program to redistribute wealth. But to address your points, Social Security has a deficit, Medic* is consuming vast amounts of money. I suppose its easy to tout the success of programs designed to take wealth from the motivated, educated and sucessful and give it to the unmotivated high school drop outs. Perhaps however you should think about the other side of that coin. What has been denied from those you take the money from........
The problem is, once the entitlement mentality is planted its impossible to get rid of, and in fact is quite often supported as being "successful".
so you think the USA from 1932 to 2000 was a failure ?
Facebook
Twitter