When being Fiscally Conservative means Raising Taxes

by Elsewhere 31 Replies latest social current

• 

  Elsewhere

  My politics boil down to two simple things:

  1. I'm Fiscally Conservative

  2. I'm Socially Liberal

  What does this mean?

  • "Socially Liberal" means that people should be left alone in their private lives. What you do in your private life is none of my business and no business of the government or authorities so long as you are not harming anyone else.
  • "Fiscally Conservative" means that when you buy something, you pay for it up front and avoid debt as much as is reasonably possible. Note: Sometimes debt can be used as a positive: You can take out a loan, buy a fixer-upper house, make it into a nice house and then resell it. You can also buy a house for personal use. You can also take out a loan to start a business or get an education. These kinds of debt result in a net gain in assets and therefore are "good" debt.

  Now, lets look at the current fiscal situation in America:

  • We have Social Security that is going broke. Why? Because the public wanted it, yet are not willing to pay for it through higher taxes.
  • We have Medicare that is going broke. Why? Because the public wanted it, yet are not willing to pay for it through higher taxes.
  • We have Schools that are going broke. Why? Because the public wanted them, yet are not willing to pay for them through higher taxes.

  As a fiscal conservative, I'm more than happy to provide any "socialized" service, such as listed above, so long as the taxpayers are willing to pay for it through taxes. The people have spoken through their votes in this democracy, which is why these services were created. The people asked for them. The government created them.

  Do you want Universal Healthcare? I do! I'm all for it! BUT... we must also be willing to pay for it. We must be willing to raise taxes in order to pay for it.
• 

  VIII

  Social Security, Medicare and Schools are each seperate issues that require detailed answers.

  Simplistic answer is not raising taxes and no one wants to pay for it.

  You know that. Especially if you call yourself a fiscal conservative.

  Here is a link to a 1997 report on Social Security:

  http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17582

  Medicare has a separate set of issues that all go back to Congress.

  Each President has dirty hands because they signed bills that Congress put through allowing them to raid the funds from Social Security and Medicare.

  You know all this.

  Continuing to raise taxes is simply not the answer.

  We all know services will have to be cut. What services? Do we need to have a tunnel for Deer and Turtles in the desert?

  When someone says it is only $10 million, that is $10 million that could go to SS or Medicare.

  Or the fire department or the Police or schools.

  That is how the country got fuc&ked up. Ear marks. Stop the f-ing ear marks for stupid shit no one needs.

  You want a tunnel for a desert turtle? Go dig it yourself.
• 

  VIII

  Oh, and yes, I will pay for Police, Fire, Roads, Military, Schools, Basic Welfare, and a host of other *Services* that Liberals love to say Libertarians won't pay for.

  I don't want to pay for tunnels for Desert Turtles and giving money to idiots to build monuments to Congressmen. Who are alive and in Congress still.

  That type of waste has got to stop.
• 

  Elsewhere

  > I don't want to pay for tunnels for Desert Turtles and giving money to idiots to build monuments to Congressmen. Who are alive and in Congress still. That type of waste has got to stop.

  I agree 100%. Especially the monuments. I'm of the opinion that structures should only be build for someone postumiously... and at least 5 years after their death (to allow for a cooling-off period). Also no human should be featured on currency.

  > We all know services will have to be cut. What services? Do we need to have a tunnel for Deer and Turtles in the desert?

  Here is how the US Spending Looks. 1 is the highest spending 7 is the lowest.:

  1. Social Security
  2. Defense Department
  3. Unemployment/Welfare
  4. Medicare
  5. Medicaid and Children's Insurance Programs
  6. Interest on National Debt.
  7. Everything Else

  As a Fiscal Conservative, its the Social Security, Defense, Unemployment, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest on National Debt that catch my attention first... not spending on tunnels for Turtles.

  If we were to address the Turtle Tunnels and turn off ALL foreign aid, we would barely scratch the surface.

  If we were to address the first six items first, we would get "more bang for the buck".
• 

  VIII

  The surface has to be scratched to see the ugly underbelly. They have ignored and spent like Drunken Socialites. Congress that is. For decades they have acted like the money they receive in taxes will just keep coming and then they started borrowing from various other areas to pay for various projects.

  Companies that do this end up in bankuptcy. They end up with pension plans that are empty.

  It is happening before our eyes with Social Security and Medicare.

  The city I live in is cutting services because, by law, they have to meet their budget. They have X number of dollars coming in and they have Y number of expenses. They announced that A, B and C will be cut. They do not want to raise taxes. They did not cut fire or police. Safety and security come first. Road fixing and public works are going to suck for a while.

  That is how a city, state and county and country should be.

  If someone wants a monument, let them get Private funds donated and build it. No tax dollars.
• 

  Elsewhere

  > The city I live in is cutting services because, by law, they have to meet their budget.

  We need a Constitutional Amendment that enforces such a thing for the Federal Government. (Same applies to states in their own Constitutions.)

  No spending bill should considered constitutional without including a means to pay for it... buy cutting something else or raising taxes.

  Also, earmarks and special spending attached to bills should be banned. Nothing should be added to a bill that is not directly related to the primary function of the bill. Right now many bills are passed only because various representatives and senators refuse to vote for them until certain spending is added to the bill that will benefit the representative or senator. (e.g., so-and-so will not vote for X unless he receives funding for Y.)

  VIII, we are not so different. We are just focusing on different priorities in the budgets.
• 

  leavingwt

  Who should decide which Federal benefits we cannot opt-out of?
• 

  Elsewhere

  > Who should decide which Federal benefits we cannot opt-out of?

  That is like insisting that you be able to go to your city council and demand your taxes be reduced because you opt-out of Police, Fire and Library services. That is not now public services work.

  Court cases have already been through the Supreme Court which state that one cannot opt out of certain federal taxes because you don't want to pay for Nuclear Weapons or a certain war.

  With that in mind, my thought on bills not being passed without funding would apply to the general idea you are talking about. Example: The Iraq War should have been funded using War Bonds. If people did not buy, or stopped buying the War Bonds, the government would have been forced to withdrawal from Iraq as soon as the funding stopped coming in the form of War Bonds.
• 

  leavingwt

  That is not now public services work.

  Who should decide that this is how it works?
• 

  Terry

  May I respectfully suggest the following?

  1.Social Security was SUPPOSED TO BE a Trust Fund. We were to TRUST the Government to invest the money in an interest bearing account that would have more than covered future payout. Since the Government IS NOT (and never has been) trustworthy they spent it all! Nobody invested a nickel.

  2.Medicare is a Liberal Policy so gutted by waste, fraud and abuse (Government malfeasance as well) it is spurting like a severed artery.

  3.Public Health Care is another Government program which indicates the mentally unstable concept that: GOVERNMENT HAS DONE SO WELL WITH ALL PREVIOUS PROGRAMS WE'LL DO EVEN BETTER WITH THIS ONE.

  Government isn't good for much of anything beyond national defense. Why? The people we elect to office aren't allowed to be honest.

  That this is true is incontrovertible.

  The Government which governs best governs least.