Pilot's Political Orientation

C J Campbell wrote:

If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint,
we call

it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together and decide to take
money from another thousand, we call it taxation.

If, as you seem to imply, the only effect of 'taxation' was the direct
transfer of that
money from the pockets of the one thousand to the pockets of the two
thousand, you
might have an argument. Now, while I'm sure you'll be more than happy to
present
examples of where you think this is the case, I will maintain that this
would be a very
unusual situation.

So, to get to the heart of the matter, people who claim taxes are too
high, but who
refuse to consider what they are getting in return for those taxes, must
fall into one of
two groups. Either you don't wish to accept your responsibility for
living in modern
society (e.g. you want to enjoy the protection afforded by the police
and fire departments,
but you don't want to pay to maintain them), or you disagree with what
your taxes are
being spent on. It it's the latter, then quit hiding behind the tired
old "taxes are too high"
banner. Get to the point, and tell us exactly which programs you think
need to be
eliminated.

Rich Lemert

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

If, as you seem to imply, the only effect of 'taxation' was the direct
transfer of that
money from the pockets of the one thousand to the pockets of the two
thousand, you
might have an argument. Now, while I'm sure you'll be more than happy to
present
examples of where you think this is the case, I will maintain that this
would be a very
unusual situation.

So, to get to the heart of the matter, people who claim taxes are too
high, but who
refuse to consider what they are getting in return for those taxes, must
fall into one of
two groups. Either you don't wish to accept your responsibility for
living in modern
society (e.g. you want to enjoy the protection afforded by the police
and fire departments,
but you don't want to pay to maintain them), or you disagree with what
your taxes are
being spent on. It it's the latter, then quit hiding behind the tired
old "taxes are too high"
banner. Get to the point, and tell us exactly which programs you think
need to be
eliminated.

This very day, in beautiful sunshine in what was otherwise a quiet
environment, I was walking behind a blowhard who was complaining about how
much money both the Feds and the State were taking away from him.

We were both enjoying an attractive park maintained by the Army Corps of
Engineers, with I believe some input from the City of Seattle.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

This very day, in beautiful sunshine in what was otherwise a quiet
environment, I was walking behind a blowhard who was complaining
about how much money both the Feds and the State were taking
away from him.

We were both enjoying an attractive park maintained by the Army
Corps of Engineers, with I believe some input from the City of Seattle.


What's your point?

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...
C J Campbell wrote:


So, to get to the heart of the matter, people who claim taxes are too
high, but who
refuse to consider what they are getting in return for those taxes, must
fall into one of
two groups. Either you don't wish to accept your responsibility for
living in modern
society (e.g. you want to enjoy the protection afforded by the police
and fire departments,
but you don't want to pay to maintain them), or you disagree with what
your taxes are
being spent on. It it's the latter, then quit hiding behind the tired
old "taxes are too high"
banner. Get to the point, and tell us exactly which programs you think
need to be
eliminated.


A good point. After all, no one has the right to complain just because
virtually every business in the country sends more money to various
government agencies than it pays out to the owners and employees. Imagine
people having the temerity to demand that the government actually prove that
it provides something in return. Instead, here you are asking us to prove
that it does not provide fair value for the money, even though that money is
being taken from us by force.

Well, we can start with the education system, which is excessively top
heavy. We seem to be getting a lot less for the dollar every year. Around
here the typical school administrator or high school principal has an office
that rivals that of a senior partner in a large law firm, even while the
teachers are badly underpaid. That sends a rather contradictory message. The
taxpayers who are paying for this stuff would sure like to have offices like
that.

I doubt if the prison system needs to be so large. A lot of non-violent
offenders could probably be just as easily taken care of with electronic
monitoring devices.

Aid to Families of Dependent Children should be provided only to those who
are willing to contribute community service in return. Those who refuse to
work should get nothing.

It is questionable whether we need a rain forest in Iowa.

Public funding for the arts ought to be eliminated entirely. If an artist is
so terrible that he or she cannot make a living in the private sector that
is just too bad.

We don't need to buy food and destroy it simply to prop up prices. No one
has a God-given right to be a farmer. Marginal operators should be squeezed
out just as they are in every other form of business.

And while we are at it, we can stop forcing Americans to buy ethanol.

A lot of programs don't cost much as far as the government is concerned, but
they impose tremendous regulatory burdens on businesses. OSHA comes to mind.

We could completely eliminate unemployment taxes and workers' compensation.
If people want insurance they ought to be able to buy it from the private
sector. These two programs are probably the biggest source of fraud and
corruption at all levels of government.

We could also eliminate Social Security, which generally adds a small amount
of income to the wealthiest sector of the population.

The same goes for Medicare. People get along just fine on their own
insurance until Medicare kicks in. There is nothing magic about a particular
age where people suddenly need socialized medicine.

Sure, some people might not be able to afford to retire. But you know, when
these programs first started, most people did not even live long enough to
retire. Retirement is not a right that you should be able to demand that
others pay for.

Those will do for starters; I can probably think of several more. The IMF,
for example.

C J Campbell wrote:

Well, we can start with the education system, which is excessively top
heavy. We seem to be getting a lot less for the dollar every year. Around
here the typical school administrator or high school principal has an office
that rivals that of a senior partner in a large law firm, even while the
teachers are badly underpaid. That sends a rather contradictory message. The
taxpayers who are paying for this stuff would sure like to have offices like
that.
[snip]
Those will do for starters; I can probably think of several more. The IMF,
for example.

It will probably come as a major shock to you, but I actually agree
with some of your
targets. In fact, there are some things that I would add to your list.
Of course, you have
some items there I believe are justifiable expenses, just as my list
will probably contain
a few of your 'sacred cows'.

When you get down to it, government spending - no matter how small -
will always have
something that someone will complain about. The best we can do is try to
reach some sort
of consensus that minimizes the overall level of complaint.

There are two other things we can do as individuals too, I suppose.
One is to demand a
complete and honest accounting of where the government's revenue comes
from and
where it goes (no unrealistically optimistic assumptions). The other is
to stop demanding
that our representatives "bring home the bacon", and start rewarding the
ones that
balance revenue and expenditures.

(Contrary to what so many like to think, it isn't Congress that's
causing the unbalanced
budget, or the president. It's you and me, demanding that our
representatives bring home
our pork while cutting everything to the bone for everyone else.)

Rich Lemert

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I doubt if the prison system needs to be so large. A lot of non-violent
offenders could probably be just as easily taken care of with electronic
monitoring devices.


A lot of them could just be released and the laws they've violated
rescinded.



Aid to Families of Dependent Children should be provided only
to those who are willing to contribute community service in return.
Those who refuse to work should get nothing.


In other words; get a job.



It is questionable whether we need a rain forest in Iowa.


That's questionable? I'd say it's a certainty that we do NOT need a
rainforest in Iowa.