Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"you can spend your money better than the government"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:12 PM
Original message
"you can spend your money better than the government"
I'm sick of hearing this crap as a reason why taxes should be lower. The government spends money on roads, the military, the police, schools and on and on. People spend money on cigarettes, pay check advances, spinning rims for their cars, breast implants and even illegal drugs. Would Sean Hanitty be willing to say that cocaine to stick up your nose is a better use of money than paying for policemen to keep us safe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sabien Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. don't forget
Playstation 3s

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well,
it might be for someone who WANTS to put cocaine up his or her nose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
novalib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Just Look at the CRAP
Just look at all the CRAP Americans buy.

SUV's.

Play Station 3's

and on and on and on.

I'm with you, TheFarseer -------

Given the CRAP Americanss buy, it is RIDICULOUS to say that "you can spend your money better than the government"!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genie_weenie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Who could be against roads and schools?
Edited on Fri Nov-17-06 09:20 PM by genie_weenie
The question is the Government spending responsibility? Or does cronyism, graft, and outright theft diminish the good that comes from social spending?

How much corruption in Government spending is acceptable to you?

Oh and can a person who is against the War Machine and is angry some of his money goes to buying 1000lb JDams (which fail 33% of the time) and DU rounds have a legitimate argument?

Edit: Of course, I don't expect the responses to address the specifics, like say Palumbo Construction here in Illinois, but focus on the abstract spending of the Government. After all we are spending money on schools and roads in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. well, I could say, "who is for corruption?"
I think pork-dispensing organizations like the Department of Homeland Security should be dismantled. Sorry, I don't know much about 1000lb JDams. There's lots of crap out there that is just pork for the folks back home and some that is extremely important. We need to have a serious discussion about what we want to pay for and what we don't want to pay for and quit throwing mud at each other and burying things in bills so we can say, "You voted to cut funding for the troops" or "you supported a study on the masturbation habits of otters"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbibaba Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'd like to see my tax money going for
police to keep me safe from Sean Hannity and his ilk. Perhaps in the form of a trust-busting squad to reign in corporate power grabs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StClone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well
As a minimalist, I find most things a consumerist invests in are faddish, petroleum based and unnecessary oft ending up in a land fill within a few years. SUVs, ATVs, PWCs (Personal watercrafts) are acronyms of planet destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. Ummm...
This says otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Warren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. I have this argument with my bil all the time
He's a rush-listening, spittle-spewing winger so that is all tooooo often.

I think taxes are be a good investment, the price one pays for living in a civil society.

After living in Mexico for many years, I tell people if they want low taxes and the ultimate expression of republican government, go to Central America; there's an oligarchy waiting you're gonna just love.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kineneb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. rather assumes one has money
for those of us dependent on government checks just to subsist, the statement is a cruel joke.

...for those who want a taste of how a country would be without any taxes, may I suggest a visit to any number of impoverished third world countries, for starters... say Afghanistan or Iraq, hmmm? Roads- nope, running water- nope, electricity or gas lines- nope, public health- nope.

Sounds like what the Dark Ages would have been like. Not very nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. Whoever created that meme obviously never met my daughter. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. I hear this all the time from my boss
it's driving me crazy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. ask him, if he had no taxes taken out,
how much he would be willing to chip in, monthly, for our roads, bridges, military and national guard, how much he would donate for those who would be hungry and homeless, if not for our government. How much he would pay for schools, our incredible national parks service, police officers, fire fighters, streetlights, and people to manage it all, so he didn't have to.

And that is just the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I have...
He just can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that the social services he keeps bitching about are a TINY fraction of his taxes.

I finally got him to understand he pays just as much to corporations as Corporate Welfare, but still he bitches just about the social services.

I'll keep at it, I'm no quitter. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genie_weenie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. As an interjection.
My problem is with the standard rejoinder, "I enjoy roads, bridges, etc" is; it's always so general. Almost as though we have to debate the concept of bridges, roads, schools, the military as a binary function. Either you are for them or against them...

I want to get down to specifics: Taxes are ridiculous because millions (or more) get wasted on:

Trident Submarines, F-22 Raptors (the F-15 has never lost an air battle), M1A1 Abrams Battle Tanks, 1000lb JDAMs which regularly fail 1 in 3 times.

Or the millions stolen through graft by Palumbo Construction in Illinois.

Or through programs which no longer are used towards their original purpose: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1542.cfm

And quite technically the roads and bridges are already built and petroluem based vehicles don't have too long a future. And, eventhough I am not against funding the "Arts", if someone does not want their money spent on Arts is it right to force them? Because if it is acceptable to force people to give money for programs they do not agree with how can we begin to dismantle the MIC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC