Government Services - Less or More?

Well, that brings us back to giving them a reason to bring the wages up. With the highest tax rate in the world, not to mention the new health care regulations, etc.. What incentive does any company have to pay people more?

See, the difference is the government will give these generous pay and benefits packages because they simply don't care where the money comes from. They'll just print more, borrow it, or raise taxes. They've been operating in the red for a long time, and this is feeding the fire.

Corporations, for the most part, do not have that luxury. If they operate in the red for too long they go under, unless they get bailed out by the governments endless coffers, that is.

 

There are corporations out there, many of them, that will do anything to avoid paying any taxes. The tax rate goes up, more loopholes are made, the tax rate goes up, more loopholes, etc. it's a vicious cycle. why not eliminate all loopholes and drop the rate?

As far as the budget plan that Rep Ryan has come out with, all it does, is eliminate services for people who need them, while giving more tax cuts to the people who have benefitted the most the past 10 years. Rich get richer, poor and middle class left to suffer.

I do think there is alot of waste with the federal government, don't get me wrong. Eliminate the waste, keep the services, close loopholes, drop the tax rate, tax businesses that flee to tax havens, if they don't pay, they don't get to do business in the United States. We have a spending and a revenue problem. Not just a spending problem.

 

Can you blame them? 35% is ridiculous. And you're right.. This high tax rate perpetuates more loopholes and corporations tendencies to exploit them.

I suggested this very thing in another post. That way, you make the left happy because the loopholes are closed. You make the right happy because you significantly drop the corporate tax rate. All the while, the tax revenue would increase and jobs would be created from more companies moving HQ's to the states.

Well, like I said I'm not here to argue the validity of what's getting cut. I was strictly talking in terms of the amount of money. I'm sure you and I disagree for the most part about where the cuts should be, but the bottom line is we're broke. You can't just continue paying something with money you don't have, while trying to cut spending. The two notions are diametrically opposed and as much as it sucks, somebody somewhere is going to suffer.

As far as the "rich getting richer" thing, it's not that one sided. Do you think rich people, corporations, and CEO's want old and poor people to die or stay poor? Someone with 10 billion dollars in assets (invested, savings, etc) can't help it that the amount of money they have saved brings in large amounts from interest alone. And it's not the government's role to tell them that they can't sit on that money when the economy is in the shape its in. You can't MAKE someone give up what is theirs, just because they can afford to; you can't legislate generosity. All you can do is provide an incentive to try to get them to do it on their own free will. That's what the tax cuts for the rich are. It's not the evil conservative plan to keep the poor, sick, and old suffering, though there are many that would have you believe that. They're trying to get these people to get off some of that money and spur growth of the economy, create jobs, build factories (which is what I'm doing with private money right now), etc... This is one of those areas we will have to agree to disagree on. I see and understand your point, I just don't think it's as cut-dry as you seem to think. All good though.

I tend to think we have a revenue problem BECAUSE of the spending problem. I think across the board there are plenty of opportunities to make changes that will at least pacify both left and right. But it would have to be done on a huge number of fronts to amount to anything significant, which unfortunately will leave some collateral damage behind. We either get screwed when the whole shooting match implodes, or we get hurt in reversing the trend. I'd rather it be the latter.

Ask yourself this... What about the poor, old, and children when the economy collapses because none of these jackasses have the nerve to make the cuts that need to be made? You don't think they'll suffer then (along with the rich that own billions of pieces of toilet paper)? The longer we wait, the worse it will be.

 

What I want to know is why does Congress get paid if there is a shutdown? That is the ultimate slap in the face of the American people in my opinion.

 

Maybe not to you, but LaSalle understood perfectly what I was saying, whether he agrees or not, as I'm sure most everyone else did. And for the record, my post wasn't a "this is why I'm right and you're wrong" post.. It was more of a "here's what I think about it" type post. LaSalle and I were having a decent discussion on this matter before you came in here and started thumping your chest. If you don't like my opinion then that's fine by me. Fortunately for me, my thoughts and opinions don't require on you or anyone else to approve of them.

And to pull a trick out of your play book, show me where I said the words, "rangers, sailors, social security secretaries, US Marshals, and air traffic controllers are all over-paid"... You're putting words in my mouth, much in the same way you accused me of doing it in another thread. You do see the hypocrisy in your statement here, do you not? Well, never mind. It's pretty obvious to me that you don't. Here.. maybe this will help:

Try harder, amigo.

But since it's apparent that I need to clarify, I will. I was speaking on a much more broad and general scope (as the question was asked). In no part of my post did I say those (or all) government jobs were waste. I was simply saying as a whole, government employees are over-compensated in my opinion. We all know and understand there are those that aren't. Had the question been, "Are rangers, sailors, social security secretaries, US Marshals, and air traffic controllers all over-paid?", my answer likely would have more specific to those groups mentioned. I'm amazed that I would have to explain it to you, of all people here.

I would think that you have the intellectual wherewithal to understand that, but either I'm mistaken or you're just looking for an argument. I'm fairly certain you're not stupid, so...

 

We most certainly agree here. Many of those fat bastards are worth 10's of millions of dollars, yet not ONE of them to my knowledge has offered to waive the peanuts they make playing lawmaker.

 

Right.. Discussion. And when I've chimed in on your discussions, have I ever started out with "Get serious, you've made no case!"..

I don't have a problem with you chiming in. And I don't have a problem with you disagreeing. I do have a problem with the condescending manner you exhibited in doing so. If you disagree, then state your grievance like a grown up does; show a little respect. I generally do when I jump in on one of your conversations. All I'm asking is the same in return.

As far as you ignoring me, I think over-reacting, but that's your call. I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but I still read your posts and consider what you're saying. To ignore you because I don't agree would be pretty chicken-chit and narrow minded, don't you think?


Oh, and nice to see you just glanced over and disregarded the point I made about you using the same tactic you criticized me for using in another discussion. I'm glad to see I've contributed to your arsenal. :thumb: