It was a Republican government to be sure that went on a spending spree. But it was not a conservative Republican government. That's why they got their rear-ends handed to them in 2006 -- conservatives stopped supporting them.

That said, what does this have to do with what Jill is saying? Whether the government is throwing money at a war or paying for food stamps, it is still being paid for by the small relatively small minority of people.

I agree that we have a moral obligation to take care of ourselves and lend a hand to our fellow citizen. But the federal government is a poor mechanism to do that.  In addition, if you feel so strongly that we should "pay our bills" then let all Americans share in this burden instead of foisting it so overwhelmingly on a certain group simply because they have been more successful?

Moreover, I agree with can go without some stealth bombers but I also agree we can go without a lot of other things the federal government does.

All tax payers are getting a very poor return on their payments.  When one thinks of the public services they make use of -- police, fire department, roads, schools, etc. that's almost totally paid for via state, local, and property taxes.  And yet the federal government loots an immense amount of our produce and for what? Billion dollar bombers and give-aways to people or countries who give us little to nothing in return.

Huh? How is she blaming the poor for driving us into economic disaster?  Do you even read these articles anymore or do you simply use the text entry area as a way to espouse your leftwing agenda?

I like that - "reducing tax breaks". And I support increasing the reverse tax increase agenda.

First off, let's remember that tax breaks are just that - a break in taxes.  The government is merely looting less of the produce created by citizens. It isn't a gift or something.

Why big oil? They run what? A 10% profit?  Where's your outrage at companies earning billions in profits AND at huge margins? What about movie studios that regularly run 30% or more in profits and generate billions? Why not them? They aren't even producing something we technically need.

If you raise taxes on oil companies, we still end up paying for it. If you were being logical, you'd rather tax people or things that produce things that we can opt out on so that the taxes aren't necessarily passed on to us. 

Of course taxing anyone should be a last resort. Every dime the government collects is a dime that was taken by force by a citizen.

Bugs me too. But it's none of my business nor yours unless you owned stock in the company in question. 

Who are these people making it harder for those to make a decent living and have health care? I've got a bunch of torches and pitch forks handy, let's go get them. Just point me in the right direction.

Yes, part of the reason was giving up a regular income to try and start our own business.  It takes a while to make a profit so we hung on until the money came in living on what we had saved ahead for the most part. It's a risk we took and it paid off but not before alot of sacrifice like living in a basement and going without a kitchen stove.  There would be no way we could have done this business venture if we lived in a house with a big mortgage to make every month.  It took a couple of years before the business was going well enough not to pinch every penny.  That and having three kids in quick succession took alot out of us. 

BTW.....the basement was cheery and finished in knotty pine so don't think it was like a dungeon or anything. It wasn't fancy but it was warm, clean and comfortable.   I had big braided rugs on the freshly painted cellar floor.  We had a pretty picture window as it was a walk-out basement and the kids were little so they didn't care.  I have good memories of those times but I won't lie.  I was envious going to my newly married friend's brand new homes with new wall to wall carpet and painted walls.  They had dream homes and I was living in the basement.   

only mentioned it because I was thinking you were thinking we were unsymathetic towards the struggling families out there including your own.  You said you were just under 30 and told me where you are now so I'm just telling ya where I was at 29.  Where I am now and where I was then are two different worlds.    I'm sure you'll look back and see the road you came down and hopefully reap those rewards  as well.  You're well on your way and sounds like ahead of where we were at the same age.   

But the war was something the majority voted to participate in. If everybody's money is being used to pay for it, that's fine.

It's different from voting to take money from one group and giving it to another.

I have trouble too with the notion that taxes are taking from the rich and giving to the undeserving poor. But to me that means I will oppose such use of tax money.

That's a very good point! Plus those companies are perhaps the most intrusive government-power-abusing companies there are. I don't see oil companies demanding that I don't use the oil I bought in certain ways or that law must prevent me from having other people use the heat in my house.

Plus the Hollywood people really show off their wealth. And they are the least patriotic.

Of course, whenever an oil robber baron is patriotic he is being accused of serving his own ends, trying to steal oil from other countries or something like that.

But when the movie and music industries force American copyright law on the entire world, Democrats are quiet.

I don't know leauki, I am not sure she was necessarily referring to oil itself but as an example, such as get your own "place product name here", start your own "place product name here" business or find a way around the ones that exist. But i could be wrong though.

So where was the outrage when some actors were making $20 million per movie, at times 2 or 3 movies in 1 year? And considering they have so many TV shows where we get to see how they live and these TV shows are hits, not because people hate them. Ever wonder how come some actors make more money for showing their faces on the big screen than the stunt man/woman that risk their lives for them in dangerous scenes? I guess these people are not that important either.

I believe it's a sad sad day in this country when a person has to apologize for being rich or successful.  And an even worse day when they are PENALIZED for it.

Just look at how opposed to income redistribution plans Americans are:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy.aspx

So Obama's 'spread the wealth' might be damaging.

all i can say after reading this discussion is

has it come to this?

JOA

Society can't function effectively without a government - we need a government, and we therefore need taxes. The government also, to maximise benefit to us, needs to provide certain services that the private markets can't do effectively - street lighting to help cut crime; services like the police+fire departments. Defence spending in case a neighbouring country wants to invade. They also need to raise taxes so they can regulate some markets which might not be functioning optimally, and to try and correct things, while imposing taxes on areas to make them more efficient - like say using a substance to power your cars that has the minor side effect of destroying the planet (so you tax them to make the final cost reflective of the cost to society as well as the normal costs factored in).

Then finally, we come to the redistribution side of things. This is much more about morals+ethics; is it ethical for the government to turn their backs on someone who has worked all their life, saving what they can, then has an accident, is unable to work anymore, and can't afford to survive on their own? If no, what if the same person had that accident when they'd only been working for a few years (and so hadn't paid much if any in taxes), should the government turn it's back on them? If you want government to be there to stop people dying, or trying to survive below the poverty line, then you need at least some form of income redistribution.

Ok, lets say we can get a general (but not unanimous, of course!) agreement on that point (it's worth noting however that at least some redistribution effect is needed in the tax system to achieve just this). Then we can move away from absolute poverty and look at relative poverty, and increase the prominence of concepts such as taxing people fairly that started to surface with the absolute poverty issue before. The rich can afford to pay more than the poor - they have lots more money to spend on luxuries, so it's only fair to tax them more. Of course the rich will then counter that they've had to work for that money, so it's only fair they get to keep it, and not give it to someone else who isn't as hard working or clever or fortunitate as them. They'll also likely throw in the point that if they start having their money taken away, then they may not work as hard, and so there won't be quite as much money rolling around. So, should we increase taxes on the rich, or keep them the same as on the poor (after dealing with the absolute poverty adjustments which will likely mean they won't be quite the same)? Well it's at this point that things become far more subjective - liberals/democrats will tend to favour more redistribution than conservatives/republicans, and so it is then down to society to decide where they'd put themselves, and therefore which party they feel best meets their aims. It's a democracy, so the party in keeping with the majority then typically is the one in power.

Basically what I'm saying is that redistribution of wealth is necessary, given the alternative. It's how much redistribution that is
variable. So regardless of whether you vote republican or democrat, you're still going to be penalised for success via the tax system, you just likely won't be penalised so much under the republicans than the democrats (hopefully! After all politicians are a hard bunch to trust). Equally, you'll likely have a harsher time for failure under the republicans than the democrats. At least you know roughly where you stand with the two parties though in terms of their approach to this issue.

A government is chosen by the people, and made up of people, hence you can apply concepts of morality and hold them up to certain ethical standards, unlike a car which is an object (unless we're talking about the driver of a car, of course).

Not necessarily, if you tax one person [poor] at 0% and another [rich] at 50%, you're not directly taking money from the rich to the poor, but rather are simply funding the government+necessary services via the rich only. So in effect you have some redistribution effects, since the benefits provided to the two are likely to be similar (and if anything could be higher for the poor person than the rich). Furthermore it's not theft anyway, since the government is imposing that tax as the price to pay for conducting your business within their jurisdiction. If you don't want to pay that price, then you can just go to a different country. So in effect you're paying for something, it's just the method of payment is a proportion of the profits you make, rather than a fixed up front fee. Certainly not theft.

As with most things you want everything in moderation! 'full' government control isn't good, just as no government control isn't good. However in cases where it's most efficient+practical for the government to take on additional responsibilities, it would make little sense to oppose that for a much less effective method based on fears that if the government was to have far far more responsibility then it would be a bad thing.

Now what's your problem with Idi Amin?

Idi stands for change and is well-liked in the Arab world. Of course his full name is "Adi Amin Dada" and right-wing detractors will just make fun of his name ("Dada") and Republicans won't vote for him because he is black.

Plus with him as president the Zionists would no longer dictate American foreign policy.

And he has experience. Look at the last country he was president of: no Zionist influence in his foreign policy whatsoever! Can you imagine what that would mean for America? It would be world peace, obviously. Everybody knows that the removal or death of the last Jew from the middle east would start the Messianic age of the moon bats.

(Of course America might have to take the odd Israeli intrustion when the IDF flies in to kill a few terrorists and get their hostages back, but that's a small price to pay for world peace.)