Thread: If you do not believe in taxes......

Originally Posted by Moot

Hmm, how's that government austerity working out in Europe?

You are looking at the effect, not the cause. Austerity is required because they were blowing money around like a drunk congressman. Now they are broke, and have no choice but to have austerity.

The point is, we're trying to not get to the point that we are nearly bankrupt, and end up as screwed up as Europe.

Originally Posted by Moot

Best suited? Not always. But sometimes yes. I don't mind having a government as long as it's fair, just and doesn't torture me or anyone really. But I do think people need rules and standards for a civilized society to freely operate and go about it's business. But of course, too many rules are bad just as too little rules are bad. That flux has always been and probably always will always be the tension in societies.

Why do people trust the government to handle the military and foreign affairs and not the economy that supports it? Shouldn't a country have a vested interest in it's own success domestically as well as globally? Sometimes, it feels like the US is trying to kill itself from within.

Government is NEVER fair and just. Automatically, when you put government in charge of something, it becomes politicized. Welcome to government 101. Politicians are amazingly.... politicians, and pander to their supporters, whether it be a minority group in the form of preferential treatment, or a big company in the form of special tax breaks and waivers.

As to why we support the government with national security, and not the economy..... it's actually pretty simple.

Explanation: How do you know a company in a free-market capitalist system is creating wealth?

Easy! The company makes a profit. If the value of the product is greater than the cost of producing that product, then you have created wealth. You got some things worth less, and made them into something worth more. The company takes part of that increase in value, as a profit, which keeps the company going to produce more products.

If the company is not producing wealth... if the product produced is not worth as much as it costs to make (wealth is consumed to produce less), then there is no profit, and naturally the company will close. Thus in a free-market capitalist system, companies that destroy wealth, are naturally weeded out of the system over time.

However, when the government intervenes, that system is short circuited. For example, Ethanol. Ethanol requires more energy in its creation, than is produced by the Ethanol. Further it is a corrosive chemical, that will damage engines over the long term. Moreover, it is more expensive than other cheaper, safer, better alternatives. In the free-market capitalist system, Ethanol would never be produced. It consumes wealth, rather than creates it.

But because government subsidizes the cost of Ethanol, it seems competitive on the open market. Because it is mandated to be used, it is profitable, even though it destroys more wealth than it creates.

So what is different about the military? The military is different because it MUST have results. When you subsidize the Ethanol industry, no one sees it destroy wealth. No one realizes that the real cost of Ethanol is nearly twice that of Gasoline. The failure is hidden from view. So the system keeps going.

Military can't do that. You either win the battle, or lose it. The weapons either destroy the enemy, or they don't. There is no way to hide a military failure, no way to subsidize it, or mandate it. Either the enemy is killed, and we take over the area, or not.

As a result, the military has natural incentives to have measurable success.

Similarly, law enforcement also either succeeds, or doesn't. How long was law enforcement in New York a failure? But it wasn't hidden. Eventually Rudy came in and made crime a high enough priority to fix it, and now New York isn't nearly as bad.

These are areas Government should, and needs to be in charge of, and has the ability to fix.

But in the economy, it never works that way. There isn't a single instance that I know of, where government run economies have succeeded. Not one. Thousands where it hasn't. From Solyndra, to Enron, to World Com, to GM and Chrysler. I consider all of those to be government failures, either directly, or indirect.

Originally Posted by Moot

You're under the poverty line thats why you got a tax cut. If you didn't get a tax cut you'd soon be standing in line to get your government handouts with all the other conservatives in your situation. The wealthy don't have that problem. Your question is a false dilemma fallacy.

No the problem is you are dishonest in your argument. I'm not under the poverty line. The facts are, 80% of the country got a tax cut. Your idiotic claim that the tax cuts went to the wealthy is false. That's all there is to it.

Why are you so angry? You might want to nix the personal attacks or the mods will get you, not to mention it makes your argument look juvenile. Anyway, I did see all the evidence and in 1997 Clinton and Albright both knew that Iraq didn't have any WMDs as did most of the world leaders. But Clinton was "urged" to keep the sanctions on Iraq anyway by guess who? Desert Fox was a smoke screen. Attacks by Al Qaeda on US interests abroad were considered "collateral damage" and part of the price of doing business in the Middle East. And thats exactly how Bush looked at it when he took office in 2000. Whether he knew Al Qaeda was planning to fly planes into buildings in the US or not, 9/11 was a blessing for the Neocons agenda. It didn't take them long to divert funding for Afganistan over to a contrived and unjustified war on Iraq. Soon Bush dropped the ball on killing the man that attacked America to focus on the man that once "threatened his daddy." Thats why we're still in Afganistan fighting a war that Bush started and the public once overwhelmingly supported as a justified war.

When someone is scum, calling them scum isn't a personal attack. It is simply calling it like it is. You made a completely false BS statement, and you not mature enough to handle that. That isn't my fault. It's yours.

Clinton fully believed that Iraq intended to get WMDs, and fully believed there was a risk Iraq may hand those weapons off to terrorist organizations. Everyone believed this. They did in 1996-97-98-99-2000-2001-2002 and 2003. All the information shows they believed this. You denying it, is equal to denying we went to the moon. It shows completely and total ignorance of the information. Again, I'm simply telling it like it is. If that bothers you, not my problem. Go learn something.

The entire point was to take preemptive action, before such a risk could be realized.

Clinton made a feeble attempt at this, but backed down because of his 'poll numbers'. He knew that the only reason he wasn't convicted, was because of popular support, and thus saving his own neck was more important than security of the nation.

Bush had enough back bone to do what was required.

You have admitted you would not. That reflects on you, not me. I'm simply telling it like it is. You don't like? Change.

Originally Posted by Sparkles

You are looking at the effect, not the cause. Austerity is required because they were blowing money around like a drunk congressman. Now they are broke, and have no choice but to have austerity.

The point is, we're trying to not get to the point that we are nearly bankrupt, and end up as screwed up as Europe.

Can you say "double dip recession"? The government austerity programs in Europe has caused a major contraction in their economies because of the layoffs of millions of government workers who can't find new jobs in the public sectors. When millions of people don't have money to spend the economy can't grow. The same thing is already happening here when the states laid off hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, fire fighters, social workers, etc. They are the unemployed who can't find new jobs and they are dragging the economy down because they don't have money to spend in the economy. Without jobs there is no economy. This is what Europe is now finally discovering, that without job creation, austerity alone creates recessions or worse.

Originally Posted by Moot

Can you say "double dip recession"? The government austerity programs in Europe has caused a major contraction in their economies because of the layoffs of millions of government workers who can't find new jobs in the public sectors. When millions of people don't have money to spend the economy can't grow. The same thing is already happening here when the states laid off hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, fire fighters, social workers, etc. They are the unemployed who can't find new jobs and they are dragging the economy down because they don't have money to spend in the economy. Without jobs there is no economy. This is what Europe is now finally discovering, that without job creation, austerity alone creates recessions or worse.

If I borrow money non-stop, at some point, no matter how much I like borrowing money, I must stop and pay off those bills. If I don't, I'll end up bankrupt and then I'll have no choice but to stop and pay off my bills, only this time with more pain involved as the bankruptcy court will come to my house and hull away most of my belongings.

There is no doubt that government cutting spending, does have some effect on the economy, if for no other reason than because government spending itself is part of the GDP number.

Thus the government can directly change that number to make the economy look artificially better or worse than it actually is. The private economy could be growing, and if the government cuts spending fast enough, it will look like GDP is shrinking. Similarly the private economy could be shrinking, and if government spends enough, it can make it look like it's growing.

But the problem with using government spending to artificially increase GDP, is that no matter how good it looks in the short term, in the long term you eventually have to face the music or go bust. Just like a private individual who borrows and borrows until they are bankrupt, a government can, and does do the same thing. Greece again, did this. They kept borrowing and borrowing, and making their borrowing look like growth in the economy. But eventually the credit card maxes out, and the bills come due, and now Greece is in the process of (mild) default.

This is unavoidable. You can't borrowing into prosperity. At some point you have to cut your spending.

See, if your theory was right, then we, and Europe, should be in an economic boom. We've spent TRILLIONS in stimulus money, which included paying for teachers, police, fire fighters, social workers and many many more.... yet the economy is not booming, and Europe is worse off than we are, even though they spend far more.

So the facts simply don't support your claim, no matter how logical it seems.

And I wager I know why. It's because you are not including the economic down side to spending, namely that for every dollar giving to a teacher, it represents a dollar plus more, confiscated from someone else. Thus every job created in the public sector, wipes out a job and more in the private.

Originally Posted by Sparkles

If I borrow money non-stop, at some point, no matter how much I like borrowing money, I must stop and pay off those bills. If I don't, I'll end up bankrupt and then I'll have no choice but to stop and pay off my bills, only this time with more pain involved as the bankruptcy court will come to my house and hull away most of my belongings.

There is no doubt that government cutting spending, does have some effect on the economy, if for no other reason than because government spending itself is part of the GDP number.

Thus the government can directly change that number to make the economy look artificially better or worse than it actually is. The private economy could be growing, and if the government cuts spending fast enough, it will look like GDP is shrinking. Similarly the private economy could be shrinking, and if government spends enough, it can make it look like it's growing.

But the problem with using government spending to artificially increase GDP, is that no matter how good it looks in the short term, in the long term you eventually have to face the music or go bust. Just like a private individual who borrows and borrows until they are bankrupt, a government can, and does do the same thing. Greece again, did this. They kept borrowing and borrowing, and making their borrowing look like growth in the economy. But eventually the credit card maxes out, and the bills come due, and now Greece is in the process of (mild) default.

This is unavoidable. You can't borrowing into prosperity. At some point you have to cut your spending.

See, if your theory was right, then we, and Europe, should be in an economic boom. We've spent TRILLIONS in stimulus money, which included paying for teachers, police, fire fighters, social workers and many many more.... yet the economy is not booming, and Europe is worse off than we are, even though they spend far more.

So the facts simply don't support your claim, no matter how logical it seems.

And I wager I know why. It's because you are not including the economic down side to spending, namely that for every dollar giving to a teacher, it represents a dollar plus more, confiscated from someone else. Thus every job created in the public sector, wipes out a job and more in the private.

There was a global financial crisis in 2007-08. You can't expect a booming economy immediately after a major fall out like that. The main reason that the US isn't in the same predicament as Europe right now is because of the stimulus packages put in place by both Bush and Obama's administrations have thwarted some of the negative impact. Some might argue that if Obama had spent more in the beginning the recovery would have been quicker. Nevertheless, the US economy is slowly growing and US government bonds are still in demand, whereas Europe's is rapidly declining and fewer investors want to buy their governments debt. The empirical evidence in Europe's austerity shows that you can't just cut government spending and jobs during a recession and expect the economy to recover let alone grow. Economic growth and spending cuts is the only way to overcome debt.

Originally Posted by Moot

There was a global financial crisis in 2007-08. You can't expect a booming economy immediately after a major fall out like that. The main reason that the US isn't in the same predicament as Europe right now is because of the stimulus packages put in place by both Bush and Obama's administrations have thwarted some of the negative impact. Some might argue that if Obama had spent more in the beginning the recovery would have been quicker. Nevertheless, the US economy is slowly growing and US government bonds are still in demand, whereas Europe's is rapidly declining and fewer investors want to buy their governments debt. The empirical evidence in Europe's austerity shows that you can't just cut government spending and jobs during a recession and expect the economy to recover let alone grow. Economic growth and spending cuts is the only way to overcome debt.

In 1920, there was a worse crisis, and it led to the roaring 20s.
In 2001, there was a large recession, and it led to the booming 2003-7.
In 1991, there was a down turn, and it led to a full decade of growth.
In 1960, there was a rather large recession, and led to a very long period of stable growth.

The point being that each of these were decent sized recession, and ended up with a bounce back. The GDP growth rate in 2001 was negative, but by 2003 was almost 4%, and by 2004 was 6%.

The bounce back is nearly universal in all recession, unless the government goes crazy and start intervening, as it did in the 1930s and 2008-2010.

Worse, in the 1982, and 1920 recession, the government did exactly the action that you claim should have killed the economy, and instead the economy grew faster than before. In 1920, Calvin Coolidge cut taxes, cut spending, and cut the government work force. Again... roaring 20s. Reagan cut spending and taxes, and the economy was booming by 1984, from 1982.

Again, the reason people don't want Europe bonds, is because they don't know if Europe can pay them back. The reason they don't know if they can pay them back is because A: they have too much debt built up from over spending, and B: because their more socialized economy is not doing well.

You are looking at an effect, and calling it a cause. If lenders truly believed as you claim, that lending to the government would cause an economic boost that would then allow the government to pay back those bonds, then no lender would ever refuse to buy a bond. The mere act of buying the bond would make sure the bond was paid back.

But that's not reality. Countries do borrow themselves into sovereign default, and no amount of economic boost from borrowing will pay back that loan.

Originally Posted by danarhea

1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.
5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.
6. Do not call the police to stop intruders in your home.
7. Do not summon the fire department to save your burning home.
8. Do not drive on any paved road, highway, and interstate or drive on any bridge.
9. Do not use public restrooms.
10. Do not send your kids to public schools.
11. Do not put your trash out for city garbage collectors.
12. Do not live in areas with clean air.
13. Do not drink clean water.
14. Do not visit National Parks.
15. Do not visit public museums, zoos, and monuments.
16. Do not eat or use FDA inspected food and medicines.
17. Do not bring your kids to public playgrounds.
18. Do not walk or run on sidewalks.
19. Do not use public recreational facilities such as basketball and tennis courts.
20. Do not seek shelter facilities or food in soup kitchens when you are homeless and hungry.
21. Do not apply for educational or job training assistance when you lose your job.
22. Do not apply for food stamps when you can’t feed your children.
23. Do not use the judiciary system for any reason.
24. Do not ask for an attorney when you are arrested and do not ask for one to be assigned to you by the court.
25. Do not apply for any Pell Grants.
26. Do not use cures that were discovered by labs using federal dollars.
27. Do not fly on federally regulated airplanes.
28. Do not use any product that can trace its development back to NASA.
29. Do not watch the weather provided by the National Weather Service.
30. Do not listen to severe weather warnings from the National Weather Service.
31. Do not listen to tsunami, hurricane, or earthquake alert systems.
32. Do not apply for federal housing.
33. Do not use the internet, which was developed by the military.
34. Do not swim in clean rivers.
35. Do not allow your child to eat school lunches or breakfasts.
36. Do not ask for FEMA assistance when everything you own gets wiped out by disaster.
37. Do not ask the military to defend your life and home in the event of a foreign invasion.
38. Do not use your cell phone or home telephone.
39. Do not buy firearms that wouldn’t have been developed without the support of the US Government and military. That includes most of them.
40. Do not eat USDA inspected produce and meat.
41. Do not apply for government grants to start your own business.
42. Do not apply to win a government contract.
43. Do not buy any vehicle that has been inspected by government safety agencies.
44. Do not buy any product that is protected from poisons, toxins, etc…by the Consumer Protection Agency.
45. Do not save your money in a bank that is FDIC insured.
46. Do not use Veterans benefits or military health care.
47. Do not use the G.I. Bill to go to college.
48. Do not apply for unemployment benefits.
49. Do not use any electricity from companies regulated by the Department of Energy.
50. Do not live in homes that are built to code.
51. Do not run for public office. Politicians are paid with taxpayer dollars.
52. Do not ask for help from the FBI, S.W.A.T, the bomb squad, Homeland Security, State troopers, etc…
53. Do not apply for any government job whatsoever as all state and federal employees are paid with tax dollars.
54. Do not use public libraries.
55. Do not use the US Postal Service.
56. Do not visit the National Archives.
57. Do not visit Presidential Libraries.
58. Do not use airports that are secured by the federal government.
59. Do not apply for loans from any bank that is FDIC insured.
60. Do not ask the government to help you clean up after a tornado.
61. Do not ask the Department of Agriculture to provide a subsidy to help you run your farm.
62. Do not take walks in National Forests.
63. Do not ask for taxpayer dollars for your oil company.
64. Do not ask the federal government to bail your company out during recessions.
65. Do not seek medical care from places that use federal dollars.
66. Do not use Medicaid.
67. Do not use WIC.
68. Do not use electricity generated by Hoover Dam.
69. Do not use electricity or any service provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority.
70. Do not ask the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild levees when they break.
71. Do not let the Coast Guard save you from drowning when your boat capsizes at sea.
72. Do not ask the government to help evacuate you when all hell breaks loose in the country you are in.
73. Do not visit historic landmarks.
74. Do not visit fisheries.
75. Do not expect to see animals that are federally protected because of the Endangered Species List.
76. Do not expect plows to clear roads of snow and ice so your kids can go to school and so you can get to work.
77. Do not hunt or camp on federal land.
78. Do not work anywhere that has a safe workplace because of government regulations.
79. Do not use public transportation.
80. Do not drink water from public water fountains.
81. Do not whine when someone copies your work and sells it as their own. Government enforces copyright laws.
82. Do not expect to own your home, car, or boat. Government organizes and keeps all titles.
83. Do not expect convicted felons to remain off the streets.
84. Do not eat in restaurants that are regulated by food quality and safety standards.
85. Do not seek help from the US Embassy if you need assistance in a foreign nation.
86. Do not apply for a passport to travel outside of the United States.
87. Do not apply for a patent when you invent something.
88. Do not adopt a child through your local, state, or federal governments. 89.Do not use elevators that have been inspected by federal or state safety regulators.
89. Do not use any resource that was discovered by the USGS.
90. Do not ask for energy assistance from the government.
91. Do not move to any other developed nation, because the taxes are much higher.
92. Do not go to a beach that is kept clean by the state.
93. Do not use money printed by the US Treasury.
94. Do not complain when millions more illegal immigrants cross the border because there are no more border patrol agents.
95. Do not attend a state university.
96. Do not see any doctor that is licensed through the state.
97. Do not use any water from municipal water systems.
98. Do not complain when diseases and viruses, that were once fought around the globe by the US government and CDC, reach your house.
99. Do not work for any company that is required to pay its workers a livable wage, provide them sick days, vacation days, and benefits.
100. Do not expect to be able to vote on election days. Government provides voting booths, election day officials, and voting machines which are paid for with taxes.
101. Do not ride trains. The railroad was built with government financial assistance.

Well, I am forced to pay for those things and if I don't I will go to jail. So I can use whatever the hell I want since technically it is mine even though I hate paying for it with taxes and find the practice immoral. So just because people disagree with taxes and find the practice immoral, as I do, does not mean we stop using the programs. It is already there, we paid for it, why not use it.