General discussion


Why is it?

By maxwell edison ·
Why is it that so many people complain about government at all levels; seemingly distrust all politicians; abhor the political system; recognize rampant waste, fraud, and abuse; see government corruption and undue influence-peddling under every departmental rock; and so on, but they want more of it (more government), not less, and they expect these people to provide the only answer for all their problems?

Isn't that like recognizing your accountant as a liar and an embezzler, believing that ALL accountants are liars and embezzlers, but you continue to let him (and them) manage your books anyway, all the while getting angry, wondering where all your money goes? Isn't that like recognizing your doctor as an incompetent imposter, believing that ALL doctors are incompetent imposters, but you still send your kids to him (and them) for their care, even though some of your kids have been maimed or killed by the quack(s)?

Why do people wish for MORE of the very thing they continually complain about and despise? Do they really believe that "their guy" will make it all better? Do they actually believe some magical occurrence will cause things to change? Are they really MORE afraid of taking-on the responsibility themselves, not realizing it isn't that difficult to balance a checkbook or put on your own band-aid? Why do they seemingly want more of the very thing they despise? What is it they really want?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

128 total posts (Page 5 of 13)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Problem is,

by TonytheTiger In reply to Social Security

Social Security is not a form of savings, it is a tax. It is disengenuous of the government to even make it a seperate entry on your pay stub!

Here's an example to illustrate:

George worked at the plant for 45 years. He was married to Edna, who never worked a day in her life outside the home. They had a little savings. So George retires at 70 and starts getting $1900 a month in Social Security. Pretty soon Edna gets sick of him and divorces him.

They each get half the savings account, as you'd expect, and if Social Security were a savings plan, you'd expect they'd each get half of that too, but that's not what happens. They each get the full amount! (In fact, many older couples divorce (but continue to live together) for just this reason.)

Who is paying for the "extra" $1900 every month?

Collapse -

Thank you now I understand a lot of your concern

by drowningnotwaving In reply to Problem is,

That is very different to here. Both in overall/relative amounts and in manner of administration.

I'd be pissed off.

Collapse -

Start with the largest infractions.

by Absolutely In reply to 11 posts, 28 complaints, ...

There are supposedly millions or billions of dollars going to waste on dishonest contractors in Iraq.

At the same time or shortly thereafter, it is worth seriously considering the possibility that the administrative costs of government "safety net" agencies are so obscene that those "benefitting" from the safety net would be better off relying on the generosity of strangers and private charities. I know that I am far more careful with my money than the government is: I have never misplaced $2 Trillion! OK, I have never had $2 Trillion either, but still, for some reason, people seem to be much more careful with our own money we earned than with everybody else's money, when entrusted to spend it without having earned it. I don't know about the rest of you, but if my taxes were reduced I think I would feel more generous, and I'm confident I could find a charity with lower administrative costs than Welfare.

Collapse -

Scratch that. Step 1: no free lunches for Senators.

by Absolutely In reply to Start with the largest in ...

Tom Delay was able to stay close enough to the rules for such a long time, while in fact selling his votes, that I deem the rules insufficient. Politicians should simply be barred from accepting any gifts of any kind. Then we can be sure they aren't being bribed. Otherwise, we can be sure they won't work harder for their pay than they have to.

Collapse -

Oh come on! Be Fair! Why shouldn't Tom DeLay "sell his votes"?

by maxwell edison In reply to Scratch that. Step 1: n ...

Tom DeLay, and just about every other member of Congress, "sells" his/her vote to someone, some lobbyist, some special interest group, some "cause" (and I use that word with sarcastic reservation). And why shouldn't they? That's just the way it works, right? After all, the people who voted him (and others like him) into office in the first place SOLD their vote to him. Why don't voters hold themselves to the same standards? And why should voters be "shocked" when those folks do the same thing they did -- sell their vote? We have an electorate full of hypocritical "Tom DeLays"!


Collapse -

Oh, cr@p, WAY too many analogies to sort right now.

by Absolutely In reply to Oh come on! Be Fair! Why ...

For now, it will have to suffice for me to say that you put "sell" in quote marks for an important reason, and that the position of elected politician carries with it certain valid expectations of answerability to the populace, not to one citizen (or group) in favor of another.

Collapse -

Dripping with sarcasm, my message was. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Oh, cr@p, WAY too many an ... the voter behaves just as the elected does. To the highest bidder, my vote is for sale. For all can be bribed; it will never fail. All will ask, what's in it for me? They all accept bribes, it's plain to see.

(Due credit to Yoda!)

Collapse -

Credit also to Doctor Seuss is due, unless coincidental that rhyming was.

by Absolutely In reply to Dripping with sarcasm, my ...

Very nice, either way.

My serious reply to the first 'everybody is for sale' post in a few minutes.

Collapse -

I think you're trying to sell us a bill of goods here.

by Absolutely In reply to Oh come on! Be Fair! Why ...

OK, I see your point: self-interest is valid, and in principle I agree.

But, I also see a problem with your model, in that even if I accept that the voters "who voted him (and others like him) into office in the first place SOLD their vote to him," they also paid him - directly, a guaranteed, full-time income, a guarantee much more consistently honored than the campaign "promises" of even the most scrupulous candidates.

So, if you please, drop the hyperbole or elaborate, preferrably both, because I don't think anybody is likely to understand the good point you're making, except those who already agree with your core values.

Collapse -

Proportion of income.

by TonytheTiger In reply to 11 posts, 28 complaints, ...

Is not relevant.

The first $xxxx of your income can be assumed to be used for your basic life needs, no matter how much total you earn, so let's not tax that amount. For anybody!

What's left then will be spent on optional goods and/or services (consumed) or invested. The former (optional consumption) should be taxed. For everybody!

Investments create jobs, thus more people will have more money to consume things, much of which will be taxed, so investment itself should not be taxed, thus leaving more to be invested.

That's the basic principle behind the fairtax plan. I believe it could be part of the solution.

The other part is to keep scratching and clawing at ways to streamline the government. Doing so will reduce the cost of providing services, which will immediately result in the citizens having more to either spend or invest, and eventually result in reducing the need for many services.

Back to Windows Forum
128 total posts (Page 5 of 13)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums