Say Anything Blog

The amount of greed that the government has has no bounds.  If people like Kent Conrad had any shame they’d go hide in a hole somewhere.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

The only thing that would have made that better is if the chant at the end included Pelosi’s name.

Milton Friedman’s adage “to spend is to tax”

WE know whose done the spending the for the last 6 years.

WE know whose done the spending the for the last 6 years.

Yes, and we know who was saying it wasn’t enough.

Wars have to be funded, true, but it dismays us to see so much wasted and mismanaged, so much corruption and croynism in awards contracts and appointments for unqualified people. So much idiotic waste in funds contributed by everyone for Katrina victims. One thing I always admired about Republicans was what I percieved to be care and competence in the handling of finances. Boy, is that illusion shattered. I don’t expect a lot more from Democrats, just different places for the money to seep away. Lets write in Bill Gates. The man seems to know how to handle a buck.

Ultimately it’s the voters who are to blame.  The voters need to learn that there is no such thing as free money from Washington. 

What the governemnt takes with one hand the taxman takes with the other.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Wars have to be funded, true, but it dismays us to see so much wasted and mismanaged, so much corruption and croynism in awards contracts and appointments for unqualified people.

This is far more true of social programs; at least with defense spending, we get something for our money.  With social programs, there is no proof that they benefit anyone but the politicians who use them to buy votes; the taxpayers generally get nothing, and in return, they get more money confiscated every year to sink into those wasteful programs.  Let’s cut the social programs first, and spend what it takes to defend our country.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

R108,

Thamk you.  My thoughts exactly.

“there’s no proof they benefit anyone”

Tell that to all the people, for whatever reason, subsisting on minute social security payments with the help of housing vouchers, food stamps, medicare and medicaid. Woops, these folks don’t count because they are unable to produce and be self-reliant. Let"s just put all the old folks on the ice after they become non-productive and have not adquately provided for their old age. Lets withhold food and housing from single mothers with illigitimate kids and hope they don’t survive to become a burden on our educational system! I don’t hear any constructive solutions to these drains on public funds, no ideas on how to prevent these problems from occuring, just resentment that they do.

Everyone I give the money I saved in income taxes for their product or service seems quite happy to take the money.

No Free Lunch

“there’s no proof they benefit anyone”

Since I don’t know you, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just didn’t understand what I wrote.  When you pay for something, you expect at least equal value in return, or you don’t make the purchase.  In the case of taxes, we have no choice in what we pay, and have no power over the transaction, in terms of getting any benefit from what is taken from us.  Redistributing the money from the productive to the unproductive(welfare) seems to benefit the unproductive, but does it benefit society in general?  Do we get anything in return for what is confiscated from us?  If we do, is it equivalent in value to what we paid?  If only because of the cost of administration, we don’t get adequate return, and the budget increases of social programs every year is a sign that the system isn’t yielding equivalent value.  Understand?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert sees no value in Grandma getting her SS check or supporting widows and orphans.
robert’s dream is to run a workhouse in 18th century England
and refuse the urchins more porridge.

A shopping cart of aluminium cans is wealth
to robert, wheel it under a bridge and make a bed for tonight. robert believes it is good for your character.

Let"s just put all the old folks on the ice after they become non-productive and have not adquately provided for their old age.

How about this for a solution.  With some of the money I saved from Bush’s tax cut, I added on a detached living space for my grandmother to live out her days.  She’s close, has constant attention, has a ride to wherever she wants to go, and all without gov’t funding.  Margie, gov’t isn’t the solution, people are.

Let"s just put all the old folks on the ice after they become non-productive and have not adquately provided for their old age

Aren’t you just ashamed of the Democrats for spending the Social Security Surplus rather than setting it up in private investment accounts.

Kinda makes you want to hang your head doesn’t it?

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

robert sees no value in Grandma getting her SS check or supporting widows and orphans.

Woof sees no value in promoting self-reliance and making people independent instead of dependent on the government.

Why do you hate individualism, Woofie?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Promoting individualism through starvation, interesting concept.
It will make sense when a hungry guy cracks you on the head and takes your wallet.

Promoting individualism through starvation, interesting concept.

Right.  Because PEOPLE WILL STARVE TO DEATH1!!!!! if we don’t have Social Security.

Get a flippin’ grip.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Promoting individualism through starvation, interesting concept.
It will make sense when a hungry guy cracks you on the head and takes your wallet.

I don’t think anyone died of starvation during or after Katrina, a far more stressful situation than our everyday economy, so that is just leftie BS.
When that “hungry guy”(looking for his free beer and cigarettes) hit me on the head, it will be because Marxist like you encourage that to happen.  He’s entitled, right?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Woof is not content to see a problem in society and do what he can.  Instead, he insists that gov’t do what he thinks nobody else but gov’t can.

HG: I have never figured out why lefties believe that being elected or appointed to govt makes someone automatically all wise and all knowing, so that they always know what is best for all of us.  It’s probably just a lust for power and control.  After all, Marxism requires dictatorship to work, and even then, it has never worked for long.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Woof:

robert sees no value in Grandma getting her SS check or supporting widows and orphans.
robert’s dream is to run a workhouse in 18th century England
and refuse the urchins more porridge.

A shopping cart of aluminium cans is wealth
to robert, wheel it under a bridge and make a bed for tonight. robert believes it is good for your character.

Is that all you have?  An assemblage of misquotes and outright lies?  Pathetic.
Your poverty orientation is cute(and very Marxist), but it doesn’t square with American reality.  If you had the integrity to support individual and family responsibility, and financial responsibility for politicians, we would all be a lot better off, except for the ones who choose a minimal lifestyle.  In a free society, we all get to choose, and work to get what we want.  You want us all to be helpless victims, waiting for the govt to give us what they think we need.  No thanks!

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

It would be wonderful to believe that everyone would be willing to take Grandma in, HG, but I’m afraid such is not the case. Nor can voluntary charities come anywhere near solving the problem of people unable to care for themselves or ensure their own survial. We either have to say that we have a national duty to care for our own or we have to revert to a Dickensonian era. Can we collect the dead bodies from the alleys and live with that?

“but does it benefit society in general?”  In a coldly material way, no. But is that all we are as Americans? Look out for yourself and Devil take the hindmost? It benefits society when we manage to hold on to our compassion, our morallity, our sense of duty to care for the weakest in our tribe, while looking for workable solutions to the problems that made them that way in this dog-eat-dog world.

Yes, I’m ashamed of any party that spent Social Security funds on anything else.

I have no problem with helping those who legitimately cannot help themselves (not people who are too drunk or high or lazy to provide for themselves).

The problem is that we spend far too much time asking what we can do to give to people rather than asking what we can do to make it so that people can provide for themselves.

And we also need to recognize that no matter how much we do, there’s going to be some people beyond help.  You’re never going to eliminate poverty. There’s always going to be some at the bottom.

I just get angry when I see all the hard working young people out there struggling to get by and sending big chunks of their paychecks off to fund social security for a lot of seniors who, frankly, don’t need it.

That’s not even remotely fair.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Margie—Dickensonian was and is a fictional story and a myth.  Families have been caring for themselves for thousands of years.  It has only been in the last several hundred years that an idea created by a pampered teenager, Karl Marx, that the idea of communism was born.  It failed.

Communism is evil

Rob your comment was more sensible than anything I’m heard here so far. I agree that the first step in solving any problem is not just throwing money at it, but trying to fix the dysfunctional things that brought about the problem.
You have a good point there about SS, but can you hear the yells when the wealthy or the wise who don’t need social security are denied benefits after paying into the system for years?

Maybe we need a think tank to tackle causes and effects and possible ways to change them. That old ” teach someone to fish” analogy is oh, so true.

It would be wonderful to believe that everyone would be willing to take Grandma in,

Not everyone, but her own family.  Why would you object to that?  If so much of their money weren’t confiscated by a greedy govt, they might be able to afford it, and without the overhead of a bloated govt and all its unnecessary workers.

HG, but I’m afraid such is not the case. Nor can voluntary charities come anywhere near solving the problem of people unable to care for themselves or ensure their own survial.

Before you can make that conclusion, stop confiscating our money, and then see what happens.

We either have to say that we have a national duty to care for our own or we have to revert to a Dickensonian era.

Nice Marxist dialectic, but in reality, there are many gradations between the two extremes you name.  Dickensian reality was the reality of monarchy and socialism.  Duh.

Can we collect the dead bodies from the alleys and live with that?

Sounds like socialist Europe or the Soviet Union to me, not the US.

“but does it benefit society in general?” In a coldly material way, no.

Nothing cold or materialistic about it.  I just don’t like to get ripped off by my govt on a daily basis.  It’s time for that to stop.

But is that all we are as Americans? Look out for yourself and Devil take the hindmost?

That’s anarchy, not free people making free choices.

It benefits society when we manage to hold on to our compassion, our morallity, our sense of duty to care for the weakest in our tribe, while looking for workable solutions to the problems that made them that way in this dog-eat-dog world.

I take you at your word that’s the world you live in, but it’s not my world.  I live in the world where capital and labor cooperate to produce the greatest good for the greatest number; the world of free people making free choices.  Understand?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

You have a good point there about SS, but can you hear the yells when the wealthy or the wise who don’t need social security are denied benefits after paying into the system for years?

That’s no excuse to perpetuate a wrong.

Some sort of a gradual phase-out would allow for those who have paid in to get their benefits while gradually freeing up people like me from having to pay at all.

I agree that the first step in solving any problem is not just throwing money at it, but trying to fix the dysfunctional things that brought about the problem.

We absolutely have to address causation first.

The problem with most social programs is that they tend to exacerbate problems, not solve them.  Look at the Indian reservations.  We throw billions at them every year, but has it solved a single problem?  No.  All it’s done is create a sense of entitlement among Indians that prevents them from improving themselves so that they can earn their own way in the world.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob:

I have no problem with helping those who legitimately cannot help themselves…

If govt programs were actually pitched at those people, I would have no objection.  The problem is, govt social programs are really intended to buy votes for politicians, the ones who keep the bloated govt bureaucracy going.  In fact, the truly needy have a hard time getting into govt programs.  If we only took care of the truly needy, used means testing to ensure that, and had a performance evaluation for both govt workers and social programs, it would be a lot fairer, and would cost a lot less.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

but I’m afraid such is not the case.

It is far more often the case then not in America.  I know many who have done so and just last week my doctor was in the process of converting his 3-car garage to do the same.

It benefits society when we manage to hold on to our compassion, our morallity, our sense of duty to care for the weakest in our tribe

When you don’t act individually and expect the state to act, you’ve lost your compassion.

When you take money from people who work hard to earn it and give it to those who won’t, is immoral.

America is not a tribe or family.  We are individuals fully capable of taking care of ourselves and our families.  The weakest among us don’t accept that gov’t is not the solution to their’s or other’s circumstances.

The problem is, govt social programs are really intended to buy votes for politicians, the ones who keep the bloated govt bureaucracy going.  In fact, the truly needy have a hard time getting into govt programs.  If we only took care of the truly needy, used means testing to ensure that, and had a performance evaluation for both govt workers and social programs, it would be a lot fairer, and would cost a lot less.

I agree 100%.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

RZ, not myth, historical fact. Charles Dickens wrote truthfully of a 19th century London, if with satire and comic exageration. The bodies were very real when there were no social nets of any kind. I’m sure colonial America saw its share of starvation as well. Yes, family support was once much stronger than it is now. With mobility, families stretched all over the country or even just an emotional withdrawal that seems ranpant today, that has changed and cannot be counted on to provide the help people need. People have been dying unnecessarily for thousands of years, too.

margie, in your gavatar you appear to be quite the happy go lucky socialist. Did you take that day’s catch and give it to the homeless and needy?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I don’t get it.  Are liberals as naive socially and economically as they seem?  Or, are they just so full of envy that prosperity is offensive, and seen as an injustice?

HG:  That and some liberals use class warfare to gain power for themselves.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

I know of many individuals and families who care for their elderly family members and they are all conservative republicans.  Libs, how does that fit into your imaginary world where only dems care for the weakest among us?  I wonder how many of you libs at SAB are taking care of the weakest among you? (Not just with your tax dollars either.)

The fact that political parties benefit from promoting social programs in no way invalidates our need for them. Ya’ll keep referring to people on social programs as a lump of individuals who simply won’t work, not can’t. If they could, they wouldn’t be helped, especially in states like Va. where reform has made it very difficult for people who truly are unable to work to qualify. What on earth makes you think anyone would go through the red tape and frustration if they didn’t have to? Most people would far rather take care of themselves.

My husband was a strictly catch and release fisherman. Not that he would have objected to anyone keeping them who really wanted to eat them.
Robert108, evaluation of the effectiveness of programs is a good place to start. AS is evaluation of the true needs of those receiving services.

What is the Robinhood Complex, Alex ?  (that is my Jeopardy impersonation.)

What on earth makes you think anyone would go through the red tape and frustration if they didn’t have to?

How long have you had your head in the sand.

Most people would far rather take care of themselves.

Obviously true.  It’s just that there’s a sizeable number of people that are either 1.  Happy to be on welfare 2.  Trapped by the system and don’t know how to get off.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Most people would far rather take care of themselves.

Appearantly not.  How many trillions have we spent on social programs?  Look out there at all the organizations and individuals with their hand out just waiting for gov’t to fill it with hard earned taxpayer money, money that could be used to take care of my family.  Social spending is more than 1/2 of the federal budget not counting education.  It is sick.

What’s really immoral about that Margie is that the bureaucracy sucks up over 2/3rds of the money that’s to be spent on those people.

Those same people that stole all of the money from the poor are claiming that “we need to do more.” 

Do you think that’s moral Margie?

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

How many trillions have we spent on social programs?

The “War on Poverty” alone, five trillion and counting, with no improvement in poverty.  This sort of waste should be criminal.  Enron is nothing compared to this malfeasance.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Ya’ll seem to be confusing immorality with incompentence. In this area, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. No one has suggested that much of the money allocated to social programs has not been wasted, probably stolen, certainly given to underserving people. The emphasis should be on cleaning up this mess by putting compentent people, honest people with fresh ideas on how to get the job done without waste and unnecessary taxation. It should not be a defeatist,“oh, the heck with it!” Would you disband congress because they certainly aren’t earning their pay, the military because they waste a lot of money? There a times when I would certainly be willing to dispense with the executive office. If your car gets a dead battery, don’t throw it away and buy a horse.

Good night, all, this old lady is off to bed. Thank you very much for an interesting conversation.

Margie said, The emphasis should be on cleaning up this mess by putting compentent people, honest people with fresh ideas on how to get the job done without waste and unnecessary taxation.

You’re talking about government, right?

Either you’re blissfully ignorant or blissfully naive.

Btw WOOF - nice fantasy. If you can’t win people over to your insane ideas on merit, just make up shit about your opponents.

don’t tell me you guys are still paying taxes?

collectivism is alive and well, you are a blind fool to think otherwise

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

Quiz time! Name the President responsible for the highest tax hike in history. Wait for it… Regan!

Yes, please, do play up the tax angle.

Or name the President who came to office with 70% the top marginal rate and left with the top marginal rate half of that. 

Meanwhile revenues skyrocketed because the economy skyrocket.

So the people had more money to spend (which is always a good thing) while the government also had more money to spend.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Did you just admit that taxes aren’t evil?

No, but you can take it that I acknowledge that taxes are a necessary evil.

Now they are an unadulterated evil when you’re on the high side of the laffer curve, which we clearly are.

The people have less money and the government has less money.  The only ones happy are the socialists because they get to punish the most productive.

Of course socialists are a miserable lot who are never happy so forget I said that.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

“Of course socialists are a miserable lot who are never happy so forget I said that.”

I think it stands to reason that if ignorance is bliss, the opposite may also be true.

Let’s dispense with the personal attacks though, which you seem so fond of, and get back to taxes.

I think you’re right, insofar as the government has less money now. Granted, they’re spending a lot, but it’s China’s money their spending, not ours. The deficit, which is spiraling out of control, should be seen as a national security threat. I’d much rather have the government indebted to the American people, than to a foreign power, which outnumbers us more than 3:1. Tax and spend, not borrow and spend.

Chad if the government would hold spending down to the rate of inflation and population growth we’d have tax surpluses in short order.  Even with the increase spending on defense that’s true.

Run the numbers from 2001-present and you’ll see that that is true, it’s always true.

The problem isn’t that we tax too little, it’s that Congress spends too much.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

I wonder which party controls congress right now…

I wonder which party is currently in power in the executive branch right now, not exercising their power of veto…

I wonder which party is currently in power in the executive branch right now, not exercising their power of veto…

Do you want to explain exactly how the veto is supposed to be used in an omnibus appropriations bill.

Now if you want to cast stones at the Republicans in Congress go ahead.  Or blame the President for budgets he’s submitted.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

I wonder which party controls congress right now…

In order for that to work you’d have to convince me that the Democrats would be fiscally responsible.  Or just spend less than the Republicans.

Good luck with that.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.