>>Whether or not that is true, its irrelevant to the point. The net flow of money is from the rich to the government, not the other way around. So the government isn't "soaking the rich in cash."<<
while you may not agree with the terminology, something isn't right when someone owns 10% of something, but the 90% have to support their 10% ownership. yes, i know the uber rich don't pay zero, but i exaggerated to make the point more clear. both i and my unborn grandchildren are tired of subsidizing the uber rich's share of america.
call it what you will, but it isn't "right."
>>Also the higher tax rates that many (including both Democratic presidential candidates) call for are not only on the "uber rich".<<
not enough information and this is open to wholesale lying manipulation. perhaps you could think how this could be true and explain how such a generality is easily manipulated to twist and distort reality.
>>The majority of federal benefits go to people who aren't "uber rich", or even just rich.<<
that depends on one's perspective. some would argue every dollar spent on the iraq war was to protect the interests of the wealthy - look at the $10 BILLION quarter an oil company recently logged.
oh, and the up to $50 per meal paid to our vice president's favorite defense contractor isn't making them poor, either.
that $250 million dollar alaska bridge isn't the only such allotment to the uber rich.
oh, an microsoft's government supported monopoly brings them in $10s of billions, even though the general public is shafted in the process.
so, they get waaaaay more benefits than you would like to admit, which is why lobbying is such big business. they don't spend that kind of money not to receive even more value back.
>>"Genghis Khan's version of the world" to the extent it means anything, is a vision of authoritarian government. Its quite different than a libertarian vision, or even an American conservative vision.<<
you should read up on history if you can't see the meaning. in addition, your version of government is imaginary - it doesn't exist. i can't argue with your dreams, no matter how vivid. once you decide to enter reality, we can discuss real issues, instead of fanciful imaginations.
>>To the extent that this is true (and there certainly is at least some truth to it) that's hardly an argument for big government.<<
i'm not arguing for big government. i'm arguing for responsibly financing what *is* in reality, not what is in your imagination. i support efforts to streamline government, however, i know doing so is impossible b/c government has the guns and they don't give a crap about you and i.
>>Its an argument that the voters give politicians screwed up incentives, which means more government is likely to be worse not better.<<
agreed. i can see why you throw up a red herring - you have absolutely no input as to how to finance what actually exists in the real world.
not everyone lives in their dreams, some people actually try and work with what is *real*. i think that is why our points tend not to resonate. i'm sure your imaginary world is a great one and a far sight better than the real one, but focusing on imaginary worlds doesn't help us solve *real* problems that *really* exist today.
PS - there is no valid solution because people are so willing to screw over others, hence, our grandchildren will be economic slaves.
run the numbers... $10 trillion in debt X 12% interest rates = $1.2 trillion just to finance the debt. yes, 12% interest rates will come into play at some time - this is reality, not imaginary land. $1.2 trillion is about $4,000 per person per year, just to finance debt, not run one iota of government, including defense.
now. about half of america doesn't pay income tax (kids, low income, etc...), so that's $8,000 per year just to finance the debt, not run government.
i don't think $20-30 trillion in debt is out of line over the next 30-50 years... yes, population is increasing, but the increase is typically from the under educated crossing our southern border... many of whom don't make $8,000 a year, let alone pay any substantial taxes.
if you don't care, because you've got yours, fine. just understand it is that view that will reign down fin
ps - i'm all for smaller, more efficient government - it should be able to make due fine on half what it takes in right now. having said that, it doesn't, so that doesn't justify reigning down financial hellfire on unborn generations. thank goodness that prior american generations didn't do that to you, right? |
