Six times John Boehner proved his incompetence.

[_ajax18]

Kevin's argument assumes that you would have to pay the entire cost of every road you drive on by yourself if you don't accept government controlled redistribution of wealth.

[_canpakes]

Kevin's argument assumes that you would have to pay the entire cost of every road you drive on by yourself if you don't accept government controlled redistribution of wealth.

One point may be that you are saving a significant amount on ammo and self defense armaments to protect yourself from the crazed Islamists, madman Russkies and the hordes of Chinese that haunt the dreams of so many conservatives. National defense doesn't come cheap.

But, yes - roadways and infrastructure are a plus from taxes. And I'd wager that your taxes stand a good chance of not fully covering, from a proportional standpoint, all of the services that you make use of (and this has been discussed in some past posts), unless you make a very good income (and consequently have a higher net tax payout).

Related, this link takes you to an interesting analysis -

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1&p=3

I don't agree that all government spending is a plus for every citizen, but the page above does make an interesting point or three.

[_subgenius]

One point may be that you are saving a significant amount on ammo and self defense armaments to protect yourself from the crazed Islamists, madman Russkies and the hordes of Chinese that haunt the dreams of so many conservatives. National defense doesn't come cheap.

only because "national" created arms have necessitated the increases. In a world without "governments" we may not have such identity, cultural, or patriotic conflicts...and certainly not to the scale that would require such investments.

But, yes - roadways and infrastructure are a plus from taxes. And I'd wager that your taxes stand a good chance of not fully covering, from a proportional standpoint, all of the services that you make use of (and this has been discussed in some past posts), unless you make a very good income (and consequently have a higher net tax payout).

This is arguable. Trade and travel occurred before government intervention. Perhaps you could quantify your peculation? You know, put some facts behind how much road a person uses, how much that road cost, and how much i pay to actually use that road.
otherwise you are just using your imagination to buttress your opinion.

Related, this link takes you to an interesting analysis -

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1&p=3

what a bunch of hippie academic crap. I would not risk using the word "analysis" around that naïve and submissive droll.

I don't agree that all government spending is a plus for every citizen, but the page above does make an interesting point or three.

I am curious....what do you think is the real purpose of a government? (idealized or not)

[_Brackite]

Yeah, I know you would. I think the Crominbus spending package disappointed me even more than the amnesty and refusal to enforce the border.

Louis Gohmert is against any kind of immigration reform, which is the main reason why I would not want him as Speaker of the House.

The Republicans in Congress need to pass some kind of immigration reform bill sometime during this Congressional session.

Like vegetables? Then support immigration reform

"Our View: There's a bedrock Republican reason to support immigration reform. Our ag industry can't survive without it."

[_canpakes]

only because "national" created arms have necessitated the increases. In a world without "governments" we may not have such identity, cultural, or patriotic conflicts...and certainly not to the scale that would require such investments.

No, not to the same scale. That's correct. Neither would we have the same level of technological deployment or standard of living. Some things appear to be linked here.

This is arguable. Trade and travel occurred before government intervention. Perhaps you could quantify your peculation? You know, put some facts behind how much road a person uses, how much that road cost, and how much i pay to actually use that road.
otherwise you are just using your imagination to buttress your opinion.

Actually, this has been discussed in a prior thread; I'll take a look for that older post. And I have some great resources to help with that. But, if you are looking for a personalized analysis, I can do that, too.

Please give me some information to begin - such as, the year, make and model of your car, the cost and quantity of your gasoline at the time of all purchases, and a log of all roadways driven on with the miles tallied for each. Please also include parking areas used and the number of traffic intersections that you entered, as well as references to the particular construction, maintenance and enforcement entities associated with all of these so that we can factor the percentage devoted to your use from them as well.

Next, we'll analyze the effect of transportation utilities as a contributing factor to your economic status, examining delivery systems for your employment (transportation of yourself and deliverables vis-a-vis projects received and subsequently completed), effects on property valuation through effective roadway access and maintenance, reduced transportation and consumables costs generated by roadway construction and maintenance of asphalt thoroughfares, enhanced availability of surface-delivered goods, captured benefits from local taxation related to commercial roadway use, tourism, etc.

That should give us a pretty good start.

what a bunch of hippie academic crap. I would not risk using the word "analysis" around that naïve and submissive droll.

Call it what you wish. You can also feel free to disagree with any of the particular examples within it, and their varying levels of 'validity'. Do you have specific complaints?

I am curious....what do you think is the real purpose of a government? (idealized or not)

The primary purpose is to protect individual rights of citizens. Other responsibilities follow as outlined by (the or a) constitution or as are required to implement the primary goal - which is where the largest part of the debate seems to reside.

[_Nomomo]

We need Louie Gohmert to take charge and quick

Sarah Palin agrees with you. That says a lot about the value of your opinion on Gohmert ^_~

[_bcspace]

The best that one can hope for from Boehner is that he is making sure Obama's policies hurt us bad enough such that we retain the Congress and also win the White House. But somehow I think that strategy is too complex and forward thinking for him and I wouldn't trust him to then help us reverse these policies once we have won it all.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin's argument assumes that you would have to pay the entire cost of every road you drive on by yourself if you don't accept government controlled redistribution of wealth.

I simply understand that you're a product of the society you're in. You didn't get anywhere on your own like most Republicans like to think. This guy explains it well:

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

For more, see Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman's informative little book, Take the Rich Off Welfare.

How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few farthings at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle.

I heard the other day that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet made $20 billion last year. Were they "working" that much harder? Or were they taking advantage of our tax-funded system that makes it easier for the wealthy to multiply their wealth?

[_Gunnar]

Kevin's argument assumes that you would have to pay the entire cost of every road you drive on by yourself if you don't accept government controlled redistribution of wealth.

I simply understand that you're a product of the society you're in. You didn't get anywhere on your own like most Republicans like to think. This guy explains it well:

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

For more, see Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman's informative little book, Take the Rich Off Welfare.

How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few farthings at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle.

I heard the other day that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet made $20 billion last year. Were they "working" that much harder? Or were they taking advantage of our tax-funded system that makes it easier for the wealthy to multiply their wealth?

All this is so blazingly obvious when one gives it even a little bit of reasonable thought that it is remarkable to me that even the likes of bcspace, ldsfaqs, droopy, ajax and subgenius can even begin to question it with a straight face.

[_subgenius]

I heard the other day that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet made $20 billion last year. Were they "working" that much harder? Or were they taking advantage of our tax-funded system that makes it easier for the wealthy to multiply their wealth?

Likely neither.
Why do alcoholics always want the government to punish people with money and reward people without money?
Just because you are unable to multiply your harvest does not mean that those who do are "taking advantage".... but wait. .. don't you promote the idea that the government should create benefits, not remove them?
U r N o T T h a T S m A rT