Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (144301)	10/30/2008 9:47:46 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Respond to of 173976

" But add in the cost of all federal, state, and local government spending, and all the costs associated with complying with their laws and regulations, and it amounts to over half our GDP," Who did more spending than the Bushies?

To: TimF who wrote (144301)	10/30/2008 10:01:59 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"How about you show the numbers and detail for other side of the argument. I've provided more detail than you have." It's your argument. I'm asking you to support your own argument with numbers and details. You are making arguments based on opinion and ideology but trying to pass them off as if they had some factual basis. I'm not saying we are in some kind of nirvana, I'm saying that taxes and government provide us sufficient benefit to keep people from leaving. "Either your implying that society would collapse if we significantly cut government spending (in which case I suggest the burden of providing specific evidence properly belongs on you), or your not opposing my point." Here you go again. You are putting words into my posts and then arguing against your own made up arguments. We get government of one kind or another when we get together in even small numbers. If we didn't, we would be in perpetual war or else living very far apart. ---- What? Social Security is a mandatory insurance program that pays out as required. It is a self perpetuating program that has lifted millions out of poverty. This is a moral good and an economic good. Do you think seniors should be in poverty? I don't. ---- "...and refusing to accept that point that much of what taxes pay for isn't necessary in order to have society" Exactly how much are milk price supports anyway? I thought you said you didn't care about things like sidewalks and storm drains because they weren't large enough budget items. What exactly is MUCH in this context? How much? I keep asking you for how much and you keep saying too much is too much...that's just silly. ---- "For the same reason that increasing income tax rates would be damaging." What reason is that? It depends on how much, for what purpose, to whom, etc. That is a blanket statement that is meaningless without specifics. Should all tax rates go to zero? How damaging is that? Why should we have a regressive SS tax? ---- "the cost of society" That's a purely arbitrary designation. What goes into the necessary and what goes into the excessive pot is purely OPINION. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion about something but you can't treat something that is opinion as fact. Do you have a model that designates a specific percentage of private/public outlays per year as optimal? Is that based on GDP growth or, say, human happiness? What do you have to support your argument? Bush has provided a massive tax break to the ultrawealthy. How healthy is the US economy after years of said breaks? ---- I don't see anything different in your arguments than the standard quasi-libertarian viewpoint. It is based on ideology, not facts which is why it always falls apart in the end. You want to stop growing Medicare and SS even though SS is easily self-funding into perpetuity. The growth of Medicare is directly related to the growth in older people and the excessive increase in health care costs. Why not attack health care cost growth instead? This isn't a public problem, it is a public/private problem. How much do you save if you get rid of these programs in their entirety: - farm subsidies including milk which seems to bug you to an unnatural degree. - corporate welfare Is that enough?