The GOP's tax cuts were an intentional "trap" for the Dems...nice...

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Sara - posted on 12/06/2010

9,313

50

584

And my problem with leaving the help of the indigent/socially disadvantaged to charities is that if some charities didn't have federal support, no one would give money to them. The bottom line is that some charities are more attractive to people to donate too, and if it was totally left up to the general population to support all charity work, many would be left behind.

Sara - posted on 12/06/2010

9,313

50

584

I think it's pretty obvious we disagree on the basic idea of what a gov't should do. I certainly think it's power could be scaled back, but I also think that it's important to have national standards for things like food safety, education, health, etc...I can agree with libertarians to a point that the federal gov't is too large and it in many ways does not give state's their full constitutional rights, and that many matters would be handled better on a smaller scale, with state and city governments. But, as I said, there need to be standards set, and that's where the gov't comes in, IMO.

Emily - posted on 12/06/2010

67

0

5

We seem to disagree on the whole premise of who does what better I think. When I look at government all I see is waste fraud and abuse. I'm not so sure I'm even opposed to programs to help people who are truly struggling, but doing so at the federal level is obscene. The federal government does not know what is best for each community. Paperwork does not show abuses that are going on.

Does it really take the federal gov't to help a poor child grow up to be a lawyer, doctor or billionaire? Considering how much money goes to feeding, schooling, and paying for these poor kids you would think we'd be getting a better return on our investment, right? I sure don't see good results from these programs. I see whole segments of the population that are dependent on the government for their checks every month. They don't want to work for a living and have no pride. Do you think that is a positive consequence of the Great Society? I think very temporary programs are wonderful and should be funded locally so that there is accountability. They way it stands right now we are just breeding dependency by funding these programs.

I think that these programs have taken people's feelings of responsibility away. The private sector will most certainly take care of people's needs. There are churches all over that feed and clothe and shelter people. And they do it with no beauracratic overhead.

Conservatives don't want to see poor kids dying in the street. We want to see their parents take responsibility for them. We want those kids to feel uncomfortable in their poverty so they can grow up and say "I'll NEVER let my child be subjected to what I was. I'm going to do everything in my power to be a success." That's what I grew up like. We were BROKE. Put it this way...I lived in a family of 2 parents and 6 kids. My senior year of high school my stepfather made 18,000 that year. My mom didn't work. We were not on any kind of aid. I bought my clothes at the thrift store, bought my own toiletries from money I made babysitting or cleaning houses. I remember thinking that I would never live like this again. I think it's good for people to feel that once or twice in their life. It makes you a better person and makes you appreciate and save when times are good.

I guess my point is that I don't agree with your premise that it takes gov't to facilitate upward social mobility. Our president who grew up in a log cabin and didn't become president because of social programs, right? All these rich billionaires we hear about didn't get that way because they lived on food stamps, right?

The type of society that I want to live in is the one where people write out checks to charities, where people go volunteer in soup kitchens, where people see people suffering and want to be part of the solution. Having money skimmed off your paycheck is not the same as what I have described.

Auditing the Fed? Now there's something we can agree on.

Emily - posted on 12/06/2010

67

0

5

Okay, I see where you are coming from Krista, but I still vehemently disagree. I think if the federal gov't shrunk to the size that it should be in my opinion you would be surprised at what your fellow citizens would accomplish with their money. Unfortunately, that scenario a pipe dream....and I'll leave it at that.

Krista - posted on 12/06/2010

12,562

16

842

I'm not saying that the government knows automatically which ones are worthy and which ones are not. However, applications for public funding tend to be a fairly comprehensive process, requiring funding proposals, cases for support, etc. As well, the government tends to offer a multitude of different funding programs, which help to reach a lot of the niche charities.

Is it a perfect system? Hardly. I would not want for charities to have to rely SOLELY on public funding, as yes, politics and alliances can definitely be a factor. However, nor would I want them to have to rely solely on private funding, as I believe aesthetics and the "awwwww" factor would outweigh actual need and merit.

Charities need for their financing to come from a multitude of sources in order to achieve maximum fiscal stability. They need donations from private individuals, private foundations and public programming. You eliminate any one of those and you put a lot of charities at risk.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

18 Comments

View replies by

Emily - posted on 12/06/2010

67

0

5

Okay, but you're then assuming that the gov't knows which charities are worthy of taxpayer dollars and which are not. We all know that in Washington the way it works is the people who employ the best lobbyists are the ones that get the cash...so isn't that about the same thing as the public deciding which charities they'd like to support? Why do you believe gov't will spend our money than we can ourselves? I trust my fellow Americans to support what they believe in more than I do some elected official who is only funneling money towards the special interest that takes them out to the better restaurant or who can get their nephew a job with XXX company.

Krista - posted on 12/06/2010

12,562

16

842

Emily, it has nothing to do with not having faith in the individual. I've worked for non-profits for many years, and I know how this world works. There is FIERCE competition amongst charities for donations, and it's a pretty well-known fact that 10% of your donors will give you 90% of your revenue. So you really, really need to get your name out there, because the most compelling cause in the world doesn't mean squat if you can't make yourself heard above the din. And like it or not, some charities really just ARE more appealing to the "general public" than others.

Shelters for homeless women and children? Appealing.
Shelters for homeless, drug-addicted men? Not as appealing.
Research towards breast cancer? Appealing.
Research towards colon cancer? Not as appealing.
Efforts to save homeless puppies? Appealing.
Efforts to save the endangered Humphead Wrasse? Not as appealing.

But are the less appealing causes any less WORTHY?

Not necessarily.

I say again, some stuff is just too damned important to be left to a popularity contest. Shit, the public can't even vote for the best singer on American Idol, and you think that they're capable of impartial and equitable distribution of charitable donations?

Emily - posted on 12/06/2010

67

0

5

I disagree. I have more faith in the individual than that. But, I guess that's what makes me a conservative/libertarian and you all liberals.There isn't too much more to say about that.

Krista - posted on 12/06/2010

12,562

16

842

And my problem with leaving the help of the indigent/socially disadvantaged to charities is that if some charities didn't have federal support, no one would give money to them. The bottom line is that some charities are more attractive to people to donate too, and if it was totally left up to the general population to support all charity work, many would be left behind.

That's exactly it. Some charities are just much more telegenic and appealing than others, but are not necessarily any more deserving. If social programs were eliminated, and charity were to be completely privatized, you would see a LOT of very worthy causes struggling and/or failing, just because they don't have the "heartstrings" factor and don't have the money to market themselves and get their name out there.

And it's one thing for a business to have to sink or swim on its own merits. But when you're talking about things like food banks, or homeless shelters, or environmental causes, I really think that some things are just WAY too important to be left up to a popularity contest.

Emily - posted on 12/06/2010

67

0

5

I'll try to come on and post as much as time will allow. I'm busy working on my Master's right now which takes a large chunk of my free time away. I tend to try and sneak away from my work every now and again, but this class I'm in right now is extremely difficult and it ends on the 20th...it's crunch time!

As far as being in the minority...I'm not scared...ha! I know what I believe, why I believe it, and I've got the educational background coupled with real life experiences that brought me to those beliefs. I enjoy a nice knock down drag out and look forward to hearing your opinions and ideas.

Sara - posted on 12/06/2010

9,313

50

584

Can I say that I'm really glad to have a someone of the conservative persuasion to discuss things with again? Thanks for joining, Emily. I hope you will stay even though you are in the minority.

Sara - posted on 12/05/2010

9,313

50

584

I have to admit, I don't totally disagree with some of what you've said. However, there are a few points that I fail to see eye to eye with you on.



When the Bush Republicans cut taxes early in W's first term they promised us that these tax cuts would create millions of jobs, keep a balanced budget, and generate robust economic growth. Turns out 2000 to 2009 was the worst economic decade in the past 70 years.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...



It seems that to you, and many other conservatives, the answer is to fixing our deficit is to basically privatize government entitlement programs and I just don't agree with that. If the government does not provide these services, others will fill that role from the private sector. Why is it assumed that private actors in private organizations necessarily, in the long run, work better for the public interest than do public institutions? Privatization might seem like a good idea to people who have become exasperated with the functioning of government, but the detrimental effects of privatization should not be underestimated. The interests of corporations and those of the average person are not congruent, and often directly conflict. Fair wages in return for one’s labor, the value of one’s home, affordable health care and food, the quality of education, financial security in old age or infirmity – these are what really matter in people’s lives, and helping people in these ways is not the fundamental purpose of corporate profit. Relying on private companies or the performance of the stock market to serve these needs is a risky proposition that threatens to leave millions of people less able to fend for themselves.





I don't have all the answers to our problems in this country, but I think that the government should be more accountable for it's spending and should strive to operate within a reasonably balanced budget. I say, let's start by auditing the Fed. Why hasn't that been done? But I absolutely do not think that abolishing some of the government organizations that you mentioned is going to solve this country's problems. I don't think the private sector can, or will, meet people's needs fairly.



When it comes to paying taxes, I don't view it as my hard-earned money being taken from me. I view it as one of the costs of being a part of a society. I like my roads, and my police and fire departments and getting my mail. I don't mind paying so that a woman with no health insurance can have proper prenatal care and a healthy baby who will then have vaccinations. I don't mind that my money is being given to another child so that they can eat today. Certainly, there's room for improvement when it comes to how are tax dollars are spent, but also you have to realize that we in the US have always bragged that we had 'social mobility'--a person born in a log cabin can grow up to be president, a baby born in poverty can become a doctor or lawyer or billionaire. The enviornment provided by our government is what allows social mobility in our society. I fear the real opinion of some conservatives is that the children of the poor, including the working poor, don't -deserve- among many things, a good education. Privatizing the system will ensure kids get only as good an education, and opportunities in life, as is merited by their parents' wealth. Is that really the type of society in which we want to live?

Emily - posted on 12/05/2010

67

0

5

*Tax revenues were still above historical averages after Bush's tax cuts. Yes he should have not spent like a democrat, so you're half right*

Social security? Well, considering it was not put into place for people to survive on in the first place, it should be modified so that the peole who have paid in all their lives still get something out of it but people our age should get a different deal altogether. The whole program is a terrible joke. Who thinks that paying into a "retirement fund" all your life but have no rights to in the event of your death is a good idea? If I'm paying into something all my life, I want to be able to pass that on to my offspring and should have the right to do so. SS is a bad deal for almost everybody. They need to raise the age in accordance with the rise in life expectancy.

Military? There are TONS of cuts that can be made to deal with that. There is rampant fraud, waste and abuse within the military and its not unreasonable to make cuts where they can be made. I'm not opposed to that at all, actually.

Medicare? I think much of the reason healthcare is so high in the first place is due to Medicare and Medicaid and if those federal programs were abolished, we'd see some real competition in the market and prices would go down.

So, to answer your question.....all three of those should be cut and modified so that people can keep the money that they rightfully earn.

Not to mention....we should get rid of the DOE, DOA, HHS. All are unnecessary on a federal level. Think of the billions that would save!

How about getting rid of most of the staff in the House, Senate, and White House? Is there a reason these people need 20+ people on staff? Considering the salaries they make and what ever benefits they receive, I'd say we'd save a bundle there, too.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly35...

How about federal feeding programs? Why does the federal gov't feed so many people's kids? I mean, if the gov't is feeding these kids...they what purpose do their parents serve? The federal gov't has no business taking from one person's child to feed another person's child. That's what charity is for, that's what state and local programs should be for.

How about foreign aid? Why do we give money to one nation to arm and defend themselves while also giving money to their enemy to arm and defend themselves?

Those are just a few places with which to start. The problem with our deficit and debt is not revenue...it's spending.

Thanks for asking.

Sara - posted on 12/05/2010

9,313

50

584

And you're right, capital gains taxes are totally unfair. OH, and estate tax too! Those people earned that money, damn it! Totally should not be viewed as income.



The Bush administration increased expenses and decreased revenue then said "Eh, let someone else deal with it". These tax cuts are a part of that. If we're trying to get our country back on track from that mess, we can't expect the government to decrease it's revenue. Whether or not taxes are morally or ethically right isn't really the point.



Sure, the government could fix it by decreasing expenses, but there's only three areas that would make any sort of impact : social security, the military and medicare. Which one do you want to cut so that people can keep the money they've so rightfully earned?

Sara - posted on 12/05/2010

9,313

50

584

So we shouldn't tax people at all, then? If people are entitled to the money they've rightfully earned, then maybe we should just abolish the entire tax system?

Emily - posted on 12/05/2010

67

0

5

How are tax cuts EVER considered a bad thing? Isn't it a win for people when people get to keep the money that they rightfully earned?

It's like the democrat mantra we hear "these tax cuts cost XXXXX amount of dollars" No, tax cuts don't cost money because that verbage assumes that the money belongs to the government. It doesn't. It belongs to the person who actually worked for it and earned it.

The whole premise is false.

ME - posted on 12/04/2010

2,978

18

190

I am totally infuriated...how can ANYONE think this kind of underhanded crap is okay!?! When will Americans wake up and do what's REALLY in their own best interest!!!???!!!

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms