• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

  • Yes, across the board.

    Votes: 10 15.4%
  • Yes, for infrastructure.

    Votes: 27 41.5%
  • Yes, for education. (K-12)

    Votes: 18 27.7%
  • Yes, for job creation.

    Votes: 16 24.6%
  • Yes, for social programs.

    Votes: 15 23.1%
  • Yes, for medical care.

    Votes: 21 32.3%
  • Yes, for the environment.

    Votes: 16 24.6%
  • Yes, but... not for some particular programs (please elaborate).

    Votes: 8 12.3%
  • No. None. Not for anything at all.

    Votes: 23 35.4%
  • Undecided. Convince me either way.

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    65
Those 25 "no" votes....
I cannot have a high opinion of them....do they wish to return to the 6th century or the 18th century ?
I for one believe we must spend a lot more in places...
IMO, the EPA, the environment gets plenty, I see no reason to spend more.
Also, spending must be careful, not all good things can be bought.
We may be maxed out in places...
Pensions, IMO, for one...
My pension is $334, monthly.
But, a state legislator can receive ten times that......very unfair...

This is why higher Federal taxes isn't/can't work. The majority of citizens can only agree on a limited number of things that tax dollars should be spent on nationally. The closer to home the spending gets, the larger number of people will agree. Keep the majority of taxes local, and people will end up spending what needs to be spent to get the things they need from government.
 
Not a dime more until our government figures out how to be responsible caretakers of our money. A task they've failed at miserably so far. It's insane to think that a federal budget the size of ours has no way to make cuts in it, or ways to reduce waste. Instead, we have politicians who are working night and day to not only preserve the current level of spending, but are constantly looking for ways to spend even more of our money.
 
I don't know, was it put to death? Did they use the electric chair, firing squad, or what?

You could say that. I'm sure that all happened before you were born.
 
Only a mindless ideology would believe that my money is better off in the government's coffers, rather than in my pocket. While I still have possession of my money, it can do far more for the state of the economy than it will in the government's coffers.

Actually only a mindless ideology would dare to say something like that and expect it to be accepted as a valid truth. The fact is that you could take lots of money and simply piss it away wasting it without any real benefit to society. Or you could keep it in your pocket (as you describe) or under your mattress where it is mere pieces of paper doing nothing. The government could indeed use that money and put it to better use than you do in some cases. Educating children is by far a better social use of your money than many other things you could do with it. Providing for the common defense is a better use for your money that a lot of things you might otherwise do with it.

The idea that just because it is you spending or using your money somehow someway gives it a sheen of worth that the government spending money does not have is absurd.

This is indeed the problem with the nation today. Too many right wingers holding axioms that they believe to be ALWAYS true when they are not.
 
Actually only a mindless ideology would dare to say something like that and expect it to be accepted as a valid truth. The fact is that you could take lots of money and simply piss it away wasting it without any real benefit to society. Or you could keep it in your pocket (as you describe) or under your mattress where it is mere pieces of paper doing nothing. The government could indeed use that money and put it to better use than you do in some cases. Educating children is by far a better social use of your money than many other things you could do with it. Providing for the common defense is a better use for your money that a lot of things you might otherwise do with it.

The idea that just because it is you spending or using your money somehow someway gives it a sheen of worth that the government spending money does not have is absurd.

This is indeed the problem with the nation today. Too many right wingers holding axioms that they believe to be ALWAYS true when they are not.

And, we're supposed to just take your word for it, because you think you're smarter than the rest of us. Yes?

So, tell us how well off the economy is, since we've spent all those trillions over the past three years. Just great, yes?

Yeah! Whatever!
 
And, we're supposed to just take your word for it, because you think you're smarter than the rest of us. Yes?

So, tell us how well off the economy is, since we've spent all those trillions over the past three years. Just great, yes?

Yeah! Whatever!

Your answer makes no logical sense. I did not say I was smarter than everyone else. What I said is that YOUR idea that you ALWAYS can use money better than the government is silly and nonsense. I gave you the example of education and national defense where the government can use money well to the benefit of the nation and the American people. Roads and highways, pubic safety, fire protection, disease control, the list goes on and on and on.
 
Your answer makes no logical sense. I did not say I was smarter than everyone else. What I said is that YOUR idea that you ALWAYS can use money better than the government is silly and nonsense. I gave you the example of education and national defense where the government can use money well to the benefit of the nation and the American people. Roads and highways, pubic safety, fire protection, disease control, the list goes on and on and on.

My idea is exactly right. Look how well the government has used out money over the past few years.

As far as the health of the economy is concerned, theprivate sector can better spend money than the government.
 
My idea is exactly right. Look how well the government has used out money over the past few years.

As far as the health of the economy is concerned, theprivate sector can better spend money than the government.

You seem to miss the point here because you are too busy trying to promote yourself. There is not fast hard and true axiom that you can alway spend money better than the government or the government can always spend money better than you can.

here was your statement and it is nonsense since it is presented as a truism

Only a mindless ideology would believe that my money is better off in the government's coffers, rather than in my pocket. While I still have possession of my money, it can do far more for the state of the economy than it will in the government's coffers.

I gave you several examples of the government making good use of taxpayers money. There are none so blind as he who will not see.
 
Last edited:
You seem to miss the point here because you are too busy trying to promote yourself. There is not fast hard and true axiom that you can alway spend money better than the government or the government can always spend money better than you can.

It's a fact, the private sector spending will always--yes, always--be a more effective boost to the economy than government spending will.





I gave you several examples of the government making good use of taxpayers money. There are none so blind as he who will not see.

And, as usual, you think everything is all, or none. At no time did I say that there wasn't government spending that is smart, needed and effective.

Obviously, the government needs to be spending money on infratstructure and defense and social programs. I've never said otherwise. However, if you want the economy to grow, the best place for that money to effect that, is in the private sector.

When I make a purchase, especially a large purchase--like my cool ass boat--I create new revenue. That's something that the government can't do.
 
And, as usual, you think everything is all, or none. At no time did I say that there wasn't government spending that is smart, needed and effective.

Sure you did.

Only a mindless ideology would believe that my money is better off in the government's coffers, rather than in my pocket. While I still have possession of my money, it can do far more for the state of the economy than it will in the government's coffers.

You were quite clear. Money is better with you than it is with the government.
 
Sure you did.

When? Quote me, please. Thank you.


You were quite clear. Money is better with you than it is with the government.

As far as the economy is concerned, it is. Or, are you going to tell us you didn't support the stealfromus package?
 
When? Quote me, please. Thank you.

jut did in post 336 - you know.... the one you duplicated part of in order to ask me to quote you when I did in that same post. ;):lamo
 
Actually only a mindless ideology would dare to say something like that and expect it to be accepted as a valid truth. The fact is that you could take lots of money and simply piss it away wasting it without any real benefit to society. Or you could keep it in your pocket (as you describe) or under your mattress where it is mere pieces of paper doing nothing. The government could indeed use that money and put it to better use than you do in some cases. Educating children is by far a better social use of your money than many other things you could do with it. Providing for the common defense is a better use for your money that a lot of things you might otherwise do with it.

The idea that just because it is you spending or using your money somehow someway gives it a sheen of worth that the government spending money does not have is absurd.

This is indeed the problem with the nation today. Too many right wingers holding axioms that they believe to be ALWAYS true when they are not.

Just because money is used for education and defense, and because education and defense are good things- does not mean that almost anyone is more efficient with the way they administer money than the government is. I can guarantee you I'd never allow $3000 to be spent on a toilet seat if I were managing the money. It's not what the money is spent on that is the problem. It is the fluff, and the pork, and the inefficient spending practices that are the problem. I can say that I am better with money than the US government. That's a fact.
 
Just because money is used for education and defense, and because education and defense are good things- does not mean that almost anyone is more efficient with the way they administer money than the government is. I can guarantee you I'd never allow $3000 to be spent on a toilet seat if I were managing the money. It's not what the money is spent on that is the problem. It is the fluff, and the pork, and the inefficient spending practices that are the problem. I can say that I am better with money than the US government. That's a fact.

The Democratic party gains no votes or power when you spend money. I think that is the real issue
 
It's a fact, the private sector spending will always--yes, always--be a more effective boost to the economy than government spending will.

[...] At no time did I say that there wasn't government spending that is smart, needed and effective.
Quoted for confusion ;)
 
[...] I can guarantee you I'd never allow $3000 to be spent on a toilet seat if I were managing the money. [...]
It would be better if you could guarantee us that you haven't been hoodwinked by an urban myth
icon_biggrin_notooth.gif


U.S. Navy's "$600 Toilet Seat"

The P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft went into service in 1962. Twenty-five years later it was determined that the toilet shroud, the cover that fits over the toilet, needed replacement. Since the airplane was out of production this would require new tooling to produce. These on-board toilets required a uniquely shaped, molded fiberglass shroud that had to satisfy specifications for vibration resistance, weight, and durability. The molds had to be specially made, as it had been decades since their original production. The price reflected the design work and the cost of the equipment to manufacture them. Lockheed Corp. charged $34,560 for 54 toilet covers, or $640 each.[2]

President Reagan held a televised news conference in 1987, where he held up one of these shrouds and stated: "We didn't buy any $600 toilet seat. We bought a $600 molded plastic cover for the entire toilet system." A Pentagon spokesman, Glenn Flood stated, "The original price we were charged was $640, not just for a toilet seat, but for the large molded plastic assembly covering the entire seat, tank and full toilet assembly. The seat itself cost $9 and some cents.… The supplier charged too much, and we had the amount corrected."[3] The president of Lockheed at the time, Lawrence Kitchen, adjusted to the price to $100 each and returned $29,165. "This action is intended to put to rest an artificial issue," Kitchen stated.[2]

Toilet seat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
While I don't doubt the story, I do doubt that Lockheed would have refunded anything had the story not seen the light of day.
 
jut did in post 336 - you know.... the one you duplicated part of in order to ask me to quote you when I did in that same post. ;):lamo

You jut didn't, neither. :lamo

Just because you jut think I said something, doesn't mean I jut said it. Sucks to be you.
 
Back
Top Bottom