Spokane7
50°
June 27, 2011 in Opinion
Taxes part of greater good
I pay my taxes.
I will not offend your intelligence by pretending to enjoy it; writing that check is about as enjoyable as a chain saw root canal. But I don’t resent it, either.
I pay my taxes because this is how we the people pay for things we deem to be in our communal interest. This is how our military is sustained. This is how our children are educated. This is how our potholes are filled. This is how our libraries are stocked. This is how our police officers are supplied. This is how we take care of us. So I pay my taxes.
It is because I do, that I was appalled by the story of James Verone. He is a 59-year-old man from Gastonia, N.C. Drove a Coca-Cola delivery truck for 17 years until he lost his job three years ago. He got another job driving a truck, but that job went away, too. So Verone took part-time work at a convenience store, only to find himself physically unable to do it. Verone has a bad back, a problem with his left foot that causes him to limp, arthritis that swells his knuckles and carpal tunnel syndrome. He could not stand behind the register, bend to reach the low shelves, lift things to the high ones
And he had no medical insurance. Then, to make matters worse, he found a lump on his chest. Desperate, Verone considered his options. He filed for disability and early Social Security, but did not qualify. Meanwhile, his savings were running out like sand through an hourglass. He considered a homeless shelter. He considered asking for charity. “The pain was beyond the tolerance that I could accept,” he told a reporter from the Gaston Gazette, upon whose story this account is based. “I kind of hit a brick wall with everything.”
That’s when Verone turned to crime. On the 9th of this month, he walked into a randomly chosen bank and passed a teller a note demanding one dollar and medical attention. He never showed a weapon, stood there while she called police, waited on a couch in the lobby for them to arrive, surrendered quietly. He went to jail, where he now has shelter, food and, yes, medical care.
I am not here to lionize Verone. His stunt could have gotten someone hurt. Indeed, the teller was taken to the hospital because her blood pressure spiked.
No I don’t lionize him. But I do empathize.
I pay my taxes. I consider it a patriotic obligation – a sacrifice for the greater we.
But that is not how it is seen by the anti-government forces who have dominated political debate in recent years. To hear them tell it, to pay taxes is to be robbed. And every federal program our taxes support is wasteful and unnecessary, except, of course, those that directly benefit the complainer himself.
During the health care debate, we kept hearing that a government-run system amounted to “socialized medicine,” as if Marx would be your triage nurse and Lenin your doctor. As if, by that definition, our government-run libraries, police forces, schools and garbage pickup were not also “socialized.” As if it’s Aetna that really has your interests at heart.
If health care were “socialized,” a law-abiding working man would not have felt driven to this extreme. A great nation has a moral obligation to provide a safety net, to care for the most broken and vulnerable of its people.
I pay my taxes. That’s one reason I do.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His email address is lpitts@miamiherald.com.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
meadman on June 27 at 1:07 a.m.
Outstanding article …. should be required reading for all tea-party supporters.
Dazzeetrader11 on June 27 at 1:15 a.m.
Essential service should be provided by government and paid for by taxes. SOcialized medicine is far afield from services provided and controlled by government. Liberals think so, most do not.
Lennny.pay your taxes like a good boy liberal. Most of use pay ours too. More taxes? Not so much. Obama’s spent too much and not in the “we”. He didn’t ask. He wouldn’t ask…he’d get a resounding “no thanks”.
I and my friends pay taxes gladly. We just don’t pay taxes for the government to control our lives. “NO” means “NO”.
drywitt99 on June 27 at 4:14 a.m.
Dazed,
Referring to Mr. Pitts, a 53 year old black MAN as “a good boy liberal” comes painfully close to being a racial slur. The type of comment more closely associated with the deep south in the days of Jim Crow, rather than Spokane in 2011. Except of course for those white supremacists who seem to infest this region.
Always knew that you were a fiscal teabagger…..are you now exposing a new facet of your beliefs??
drywitt99 on June 27 at 5:25 a.m.
By the way…..I completely share Mr. Pitts views on paying my taxes.
Only difference…..his check contains more numbers.
Probably even more than Dazed and hawken.
But he pays them without resentment.
For he….as do many of us…..realize that taxes are the price we pay for a just and civilized nation.
Jeffrey_Grey on June 27 at 5:45 a.m.
-shrug- Mr. Pitts’ central point is sound. Supporting the cost of it is the price we pay for living in and enjoying the advantages of a civilized society.
But just because the costs are real and the need to pay them is real, that doesn’t mean that the system that collects those payments is perfect. Our current tax system is a monument to the flaws inherently possible in a partisan advantage-, political advantage-driven system.
So the real question now facing this nation is not whether or not we need to pay taxes - only the farthest-fringe-dwelling zealots can convince themselves that’s actually even a question. Rather, the question we have to continually answer for ourselves as informed voters is if our elected representatives are doing the best job of first; spending our money in the best possible way (costs) and second; of collecting the money to pay those costs in the best possible way.
Reasonable minds can certainly debate and discuss those two points. Partisan ‘minions’ on both sides gibber and prattle and hoplessly cloud the issue as they dutifully spout the party line.
drywitt99 on June 27 at 5:55 a.m.
What is the alternative to a “partisan advantage-, political advantage-driven system?”
You are correct Jeff, “Reasonable minds can certainly debate and discuss those two points.”
But will debate and discussion solve the problem??
I wonder??
hawken on June 27 at 6:36 a.m.
Well,,,, I learned something this morning. If I can trust the information is accurate. According to Drywitt, Pitts is a 53 yr old black man.
I didn’t know that.
But really,,,,, who cares other than those liberals whom look for every opportunity to brandish their ubiquitous “racist” accusation.
Of course, paying taxes is essential to fund the necessities of government,,,, and to continue the huge fraud, abuse and wasteful spending of government, irresponsibly spending of our tax dollars. Not to mention, the continuance of our huge, Nanny State form of government. And then,,,, we do have to pay for the gluttonous borrowing that has been going on for decades.
So, lets all be good little liberals like Pitts and beg our government to please,,,,, raise my taxes more and more!
Let’s all become Sadomasochists,,,, more taxes please.
_________________________________________
Tax the job producers ($250k and more) even more and then expect the unemployment numbers to spike even more above Obama’s chronic, extended U6 unemployment of 15.8%.
To quote the golden boy of the left,,, Clinton,,,, “It’s the economy stupid.”
Good thing Clinton isn’t black or I would be called a “racist,” again.
First,,, order of business,,,, jobs, jobs, jobs. Fix the economy. Raising taxes again is the worst thing to do.
Unless, your an “employed” liberal who wants to keep the Nanny State going to the point of collapse.
Jeffrey_Grey on June 27 at 7:28 a.m.
The part of his citation that hawken doesn’t include is this:
(emphasis in the original)
Jeffrey_Grey on June 27 at 7:31 a.m.
drywitt,
It’s not so much an ‘alternative’ as it is a remedy. And that remedy is for the electorate to stop playing for partisan advantage - ‘Go Team!’ - and instead demand that job one for elected representatives be wise governance.
Not getting re-elected or ensuring that ‘our side’ gets the majority no matter what it costs the nation in the long run.
woamike on June 27 at 7:53 a.m.
Mr. Pitts,
That’s quite a sob story. A poor man driven to “rob” a bank because the government hasn’t robbed enough money from enough people (yet) to provide for his needs. So, in the end, it’s the fault of other people who are reluctant to fork over more of their hard-earned dough for the feds to spend/waste as they see fit. Nice.
Here’s the problem though, Mr. Pitts: the Founders did not risk their lives for and we did not declare independence from England and fight the Revolutionary War to create a socialist or welfare state. We just didn’t - sorry. The burgeoning welfare state is a relatively modern phenom in this country and it is going to be the death of the USA as more and more “makers” are being replaced by “takers”.
All decent people have compassion for and help to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. That is why there are so many charities and charitible activities by religious and other organizations in this country. That is where the “moral” obligation lies, NOT with the federal/state government.
While there is clearly NO constitutional basis for income redistribution or any other form of direct welfare handouts, one could make an argument that a civilized society’s government should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves when all other means have been exhausted. YOU WILL GET NO ARGUMENT FROM ME.
But, that is NOT what is happening today and not where the libs, “do-gooders”, Marxists, and others want to take us. We have FAR too many people today getting “help” from the feds for far more than their basic needs.
You all know this as I do. It’s not even a close call any more.
You can now go from cradle to grave in this country and not work a day in your life. Granted, you won’t be living like a king, but it can and is being done more and more. The growing welfare state is only good for ONE class of people: the politicians that derive, maintain and expand their power through the taking (by force of tax law) from one group of citizens and giving to others. The pervasive and growing system of welfare in the U.S. does not help people in the long-run. Rather, it creates sloth and dependance and weakens our country.
I don’t mind paying my taxes either, Mr. Pitts. As long as the taxes are used for legitimate, constitutionally authorized expenditures. I’m also willing to throw in a few tax dollars (in addition to what I already give to charity) for those REALLY needy people that fall through the cracks. That DOES NOT include the pervasive welfare services, subsidies and direct payments from A to Z for able-bodied people we “give” people now. Like I said before, if we don’t turn the tide on that trend, this country is finished.
I’ve found there are two types of people who make the claim that they “don’t mind paying taxes” [for anything and everything, including direct welfare assistance for those that neither need it nor deserve it]: those who pay little or no taxes and those who make so much money they don’t care. The latter class of people either tend to use it as a false shield of “virture” or have a perverted sense of “guilt”.
mikeln on June 27 at 7:54 a.m.
What I find interesting is that our taxes will not go down but the level of government services will decline. Will this extra money that is not spent on these programs be used to pay down the national debt or will it just end up in that top 1% of households? Some complain about the amout of taxes they pay but think giving way more of thier paycheck to the health insurance industry and energy companies is just fine. And if you think about it, being a nation that has to live in debt, interest is nothing more then corporate banking taxing us. I do not mind paying taxes, the price for keeping this nation whole, I do however resent that most of those taxes end up doing nothing more then making the wealthy, wealthier. You just have to look at the crumbling of americas infrastucture to see that.
detroitdude on June 27 at 8:04 a.m.
Good article by Pitts. I could not agree more in this case. I echo the sentiment that out tax collecting system needs a serious re-working on ALL levels, and I didn’t say we need to raise taxes either. It just needs to be reformed.
This article also sheds light on the plight of those who do not have insurance and have no options for seeking medical care. It is sad this man, when all other options were exhausted, had to commit a crime and be arrested to have his medical condition examined. I know anyone can also walk into the ER for help and will not be turned away, but we have to get serious in addressing these issues when it comes to health care for all.
Someone, like James Verone, should NOT have to be on the hook for all medical expenses just because he went to seek help for something that possibly saved his life, whether immediate or down the road. Privatized health care is a broken system that does not work. The fact of the matter is this, if we had socialized health care in this country, EVERYONE (including those who get medical through insurance companies) would pay less, and EVERYONE would have health care. To all those who whine and complain that they don’t want other peoples health care on their tax dollars, I have a newsflash for you, in a system of universal/socialized healthcare, you will be paying LESS than what you do to the insurance company in premiums. So really, it saves everyone involved money. The only ones who lose are the insurance companies.
richard on June 27 at 8:19 a.m.
Drywitt said …
“Referring to Mr. Pitts, a 53 year old black MAN as “a good boy liberal” comes painfully close to being a racial slur.”
Of course it is Witless … for lefties who cannot win an argument without resorting to emotionalism and slurring their opponents. Instead of addressing what was said and offering a logical, rational counter-point, you do the only thing you know … throw mud and muck and assert “moral authority” to do so.
The problem with Leonard’s “appeal” is that it is pure emotionalism. He offers only “black and white” perceptions. “Good” people want higher taxes; “bad” people want no taxes.
The so-called “anti-government” forces have never said anything about taking away safety-nets. Leonard lies.
He claims that if health care were “socialized”, a good man would not have been “driven” to the extreme of his example. He makes James Verone into a “victim” of the “anti-government” (drawing a mental image of the right being anti-American insurgents who want to topple the government by “force”), and that all we need to do is adopt “socialized” medicine and all will be well.
Leonard uses emotionalism because that is the only argument for BIG GOVERMENT and collectivism, and because “big family” approach to government has always failed BIG TIME.
But, this will be what the left and media will be pursing from this point on – emotional, fact less appeals to the heart.
Does anyone realize that if you taxed ALL the income of those earning $200,000 (Obama’s definition of wealthy) it would not even put a dent – not even a knick – into the debt?
Of course you don’t; that has no “emotional” impact on you so it does not register. So you read Leonard and you get a lump in your throat feeling that TRUTH has been spoken.
Kind of said, really.
woamike on June 27 at 8:26 a.m.
Current Liberal Fantasy:
More people, getting more and better healthcare will be cheaper! And, as an added bonus: Things will be “fairer” since this more/better healthcare will be administered by “virtuous” and “wise” government bureaucrats.
According to liberal “logic”, if the federal government took over McDonalds, instead of cheeseburgers on the “dollar” menu, there would be steak (made from organic tofu of course) and it would only be 75 cents. As an added bonus, french fries would no longer make you fat. All this, if we got rid of the evil profit motive, sacked the millionares than ran the place and the government took over. What a deal!
Libs: May I interest you in a bridge I have for sale? I’ll give you a real good deal on it.
woamike on June 27 at 8:28 a.m.
Richard,
VERY well said. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
jddavis on June 27 at 8:37 a.m.
Hawken—
Surely you remember when President Clinton was first voted in office (long, long before President Obama) he was referred to as “the first black President.”
With that said, you should be very careful saying “boy” and “Clinton” in the same sentence; some posters on here who lay-in-wait for you are sure to pounce given the chance.
Just sayin’
detroitdude on June 27 at 8:37 a.m.
The problem Richard and Woamike, is that you compare universal healthcare to people who work the system on welfare, or abuse any safety nets that are currently in place.
I agree there also needs to be welfare reform, there also needs to be more checks and balances in the welfare system to actually get people from welfare to work. Nobody wants to pay towards a cause that initially good intentions but can be easily perverted. I’ve heard some messed up stories too, people on assistance buying Perrier to make ice cubes with and such, it’s complete nonsense and abuse.
Socialized/universal healthcare is NOT an extension of the things I stated above. In fact, when put into practice it is wholly separate, due to the fact that it covers every citizen, and not just those who fall into a certain economic group. And once, again, you would pay less of your own money for universal healthcare, than you would to an insurance company in monthly premiums. Premiums you pay whether you utilize the coverage or not.
eagleproducer on June 27 at 8:47 a.m.
I don’t care what percentage what percentile is paying in taxes. All I know is that taxes are at their lowest in relation to GDP since the 1940’s.
15.6% of GDP is collected currently in federal taxes. Here are some other countries who collect about the same or lower percentage of taxes:
Mozambique: 13.4%
Niger 12.8%
Honduras 15.6%
Ivory Coast 15.4%
Dominican Republic 14%
I’ve heard many tea baggers that think they know something about fiscal policy claim they’d like to see taxes shrunk to 10% of GDP or lower. Chad, anyone?
We aren’t broke.
eagleproducer on June 27 at 8:55 a.m.
I’ll bet woamike and/or Richard can’t name one person they know who cheated social services. I’ll bet none of their friends can either. I understand that since they both have probably never left the conservative heaven of Spokane County, they don’t realize there are vast regions of this state and nation that aren’t government check towns like Spokane. It’s easy to think that since so many people in Spokane are on the dole (which they are from top income brackets on down to the lowest earners) that the rest of the U.S. lives like that. We don’t. In fact, the only places that typically receive more money in services/benefits than they pay in taxes are conservative regions. None of them can explain that fact and don’t even attempt to. It’s like a huge case of typing finger apoplexy when these links are exposed:
http://depts.washington.edu/geog/2011/02/revenueexpenditure-disparities-by-county-in-washington-state/
http://gumption.posterous.com/disproportionate-ratios-between-red-and-blue
I expect crickets. Again.
jddavis on June 27 at 8:58 a.m.
Detroit—I appreciate your thought out opinion on universal health care, and your understanding on the need for welfare reform.
I will go out on a limb and say everyone who earns a paycheck and is taxed on their income is aware and concerned to varying levels on how “efficiently” their tax dollars are spent. The group of people who pay income tax (50% of wage earners) will pick up the tab for universal health care—essentially picking up the tab for the other 50% who don’t pay income taxes. This is the “money” concern of many who oppose universal health care.
Personally, I cannot see how I will be paying less than I do now to cover my family with health insurance. It would be nice if the government would put out a table of what every income tax payer would be liable to pay for universal health care, based on their AGI. If it works out that a tax payer’s insurance premiums were less than the added tax for their share of universal health care, they would be able to opt-out.
eagleproducer on June 27 at 8:58 a.m.
detroit: It’s useless to explain to baggers how lowering risk decreases insurance premiums. I’m guessing none of them have seen life insurance policies that offer better rates for people who engage in less-risky behavior, or discounts on auto insurance for people with extended clean driving records.
Glenn Beck must have scratched the word “ubiquitous” on his chalkboard recently…
BuRgEoNyT on June 27 at 8:59 a.m.
Anyone who has studied the history of taxation knows that taxes were originally designed to enrich a small minority by scraping wealth off the collective. Taxation is just a modern form of slavery, albeit a more politically correct form.
Federal taxes don’t pay for anything…all the ‘services’ are payed for by loans from investors. The federal income tax pays that small elite back plus interest. To keep the scam going, they throw a few peanuts to the poor so they will continue to vote for more taxation that helps transfer the wealth of the middle class to the super-rich. They take a dollar from us, give back a penny, then tell us ‘change is good’.
Taxation is theft. Many of us only pay because we know if we resist, the government will haul us to prison. If we resist, they will kill us. We should hope for a system that doesn’t require coercion to reach it’s ends. Just because we disagree with the method of funding doesn’t mean that we don’t want certain services or functions of government; to insinuate that is intellectually dishonest.
Studying the works of Mandell House, who helped usher in the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax on behalf of Chatham House; it’s pretty easy to understand while he also pushed collectivism into our education system in the 20’s to create what he referred to as the ‘New Soviet Man’ who sacrifices for the group. It’s sad to see they have succeeded in indoctrinating the generations into this mindset.
woamike on June 27 at 9:00 a.m.
The problem you and your friends have detroit, and I say this with zero animosity or ill will toward you, is that you live in a theorectical, fanciful world vs. the real world.
Socialized “Universal” healthcare would neither be cheaper, better or “fairer”.
By the way, what is “universal” health care anyway? Does that mean you would only get the best quality, unlimited healthcare on demand? Any/all tests/procedures done with little/no waiting for little or no cost to you? That’s what the fantasy is being sold as. If it ever comes to pass the reality will be far from that. Can you not see that?
We’d be spending our entire national wealth on healthcare to make the fantasy come true. Of course, you know what would really happen: poorer care for more people with longer waits at a greater cost (both in dollars and human suffering). Only the wealthy and connected would get proper, timely care.
Dazzeetrader11 on June 27 at 9:03 a.m.
“Good boy liberal” borders on racism? Oh I suppose I should put “ole” in there to make you feel better. Then he’d be a “good ole boy liberal”…sorry…you’re fishing for trouble.
I suppose it’s the usual retort from liberals losing the argument. It’s pretty standard nowadays.
Essential service like roads, clean water, etc should be supported by a proper tax. It’s the overeach that shouldn’t be paid for. Things like healthcare……people can be very healthy without the government if they want to be. You Libs are confused. Insurance doesn’t make a person live lobger. Say for example, I have $150 K sitting in my garage…and say it’s earmarked for health….think all that money will make or keep me healthy? It’s a great insurance against devastation…but doesn’t have much to do with health. Don’t tie the two together..it’s an inappropriate fit.
Essential services…that and that alone. Watch the deficit fall like a rock. Watch budgets shrink. Of course theLiberal Dem appeal would die off too. Not a bad idea.
jddavis on June 27 at 9:04 a.m.
Eagle:
“I don’t care what percentage what percentile is paying in taxes. All I know is that taxes are at their lowest in relation to GDP since the 1940’s.
15.6% of GDP is collected currently in federal taxes.”
Are you saying that if more people paid income taxes, we’d be in better shape GDP wise? or are you saying those that currently pay income tax need to pay more? or both?
hawken on June 27 at 9:08 a.m.
Grey’s argument is both a “Red Herring” and “Biased Sample” fallacy.
Basing his argument on the top 1% of income earners,,, $410k and more is absurd. They pay 40% of total taxes.
The top 25% pay 87% of all taxes.
Do the math:
The top 1% pay 40%, the next 24% pay 46%. To be in the top 25% of those who pay 87% of taxes, your income need only be $66,523.
Even if you taxed the top 3% of $250k and more, 100% of their income, it would not make a dent in our deficit and debts.
What it will do is punish the job producers causing more unemployment than we have already. And we will still have record deficits and debt. This is what people like Grey don’t get.
That’s the point.
Most reasonable people could care less how much the 1% make.
Most reasonable people are not punishingly envious of how much the 1% make.
All of those looking for work and want to raise taxes, should ask a poor person for a job.
Too many don’t understand that the more you punish the job producers, the higher unemployment becomes and the deeper we as a nation sink into the depressed, economic, abyss.
Meanwhile, the 1% will still be wealthy and very comfortable.
So, while we wallow in the mud of a depressed economy with chronic unemployment becoming even higher,,,, The liberal left can say…. we showed them! But, that too will be a lie.
The most certain method to increase the variance between the 1% and the rest of us is to punish the job producers. In chronic, economic recession and depression, there is even a greater transfer of wealth from the middle income to the 1%.
They have the money to invest in all markets when all markets have tanked. Meanwhile, because of the depressed state of the economy, the middle income is brutalized even more. While the 1% make greater gains. The 1% remain wealthy and the poor remain poor, and a larger group having been joined by what was formerly the “middle income.”
This is precisely the direction we are going on a fast track.
The only solution the liberal left has is to keep raising taxes on the job producers.
That’s the point.
hawken on June 27 at 9:12 a.m.
Comrade Eagle:
What we should be focused on is GDP/Dept. Not GDP/Taxes. See my post above. More taxes will kill jobs and the economy even more. More taxes will expand the variance between the 1% and the rest of us even more.
woamike on June 27 at 9:16 a.m.
Dear Marxist “there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics” agenda-driven link posting EP,
Got to love your ignorant quote regarding Richard and me:
“I understand that since they both have probably never left the conservative heaven of Spokane County. . .”
I’m in Hong Kong right now and will be in Baku tommorow followed by Budapest, Luxembourg, Dubai and Frankfurt in the next two weeks. You?
Perhaps you should venture outside of your Marxist fantasy world sometime. I’m certain I’ve been to more places, more often than you could dream of. Not that it matters, oh exalted scholarly one.
Find a summer job yet? Or, did you bag enough from the tax-payers to eat bon-bons all summer?
detroitdude on June 27 at 9:29 a.m.
http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
http://www.cfr.org/health-science-and-technology/healthcare-costs-us-competitiveness/p13325
The proof is right here. We spend exponentially more on health care yet rank 27th in life expectancy. To me that says other countries are paying less and getting a better product. The first thing though, is that people need to get off the supposition that changes made to the healthcare system will in one way or another, make the system “perfect”. There is no such thing. The system we have now definitely isn’t “perfect” by any stretch of the imagination. Would universal healthcare be “perfect”? No, but it would be “better” than what we have.
detroitdude on June 27 at 9:36 a.m.
Edit: The above chart is outdated in regards to life expectancy being ranked 27th, the US actually fell to 36th in 2010, and 34th in a study conducted by the CIA itself.
johnclarke on June 27 at 9:50 a.m.
“I’m in Hong Kong right now and will be in Baku tommorow followed by Budapest, Luxembourg, Dubai and Frankfurt in the next two weeks. You? ”
Oh great, another tycoon that spends his time here at the SR. You better get some sleep there buddy, since it’s 12:40 am in Hong Kong.
So, until taxes are restored to the historical successful range of around 20-21% of GDP, we are going to have a problem. But, guess what ! We don’t have to do anything, simply let the Bush welfare for the rich program expire and we’ll be good in about 5 years.
woamike on June 27 at 9:59 a.m.
@DD,
“The proof is right here. We spend exponentially more on health care yet rank 27th in life expectancy. To me that says other countries are paying less and getting a better product.”
“Proof” that other countries are paying less while getting a better product or that our system needs total, wholesale change?
Perhaps we spend more because we do in fact better have superior care due to epensive diagnostics, cutting-edge procedures and exotic, expensive to develop life saving drugs. Perhaps we spend more because we spend untold millions on people who illegally cross our borders and parasite our “free” medical care. Perhaps we spend more because our government wastes medicare/medicaid money and compels waste on the private sector w/ burdensome red-tape requirements. I’m sure we spend more for myriad reasons, both good and bad.
Perhaps our life expectancy calculation is a little lower because our young men kill eachother on a regular basis, die in wars, car wrecks, drug over doses and the like rather than living as sugar-cane farmers in Okinawa eating tofu and seaweed. I’m sure there are a number of reasons our life expectancy is not number 1 in the world, none of which that have anything to do with our quality of care or availability of health “insurance”.
The point is, for you to cite as “PROOF” our medical system is overly expensive and/or sub-standard because of a couple of charts is a huge leap in logic. To think we should dismantal the entire system and put the feds in charge because that would be better, fairer and cheaper is an even greater leap of logic.
woamike on June 27 at 10:14 a.m.
JC,
I must thank you for the great laugh: “Oh great, another tycoon that spends his time here at the SR. You better get some sleep there buddy, since it’s 12:40 am in Hong Kong.”
Tycoon? That’s a good one. I’ve never made more than 120K in my life and until recently it was a lot less. Is that the new definition of “tycoon”?. If the company I work for doesn’t go out of business, I’ll earn around 90K this year. I guess that makes me “rich” and I should give more to Uncle Sam so he can give it someone else, right??? Thank-you, no. I work hard for my money and make great sacrifices to earn my bread - like every other hard-working person.
Like most every caring person, I already give a substantial portion of my income to charity. I don’t need the feds taking more of my money to give to able-bodied people that are lazy, under-performing, have squandered their money and opportunities or whatever. They can get out and bust their hump like the rest of us.
Well, it’s now 0115 in the morning here in HK and I’m listening to the Dennis Miller show on KXLY over the internet - still haven’t got over my jet-lag yet.
eagleproducer on June 27 at 10:15 a.m.
wormlike: I’ll bet your travels are financed on my dime… I own a business and work harder in the summer than I do when I’m trying to correct the nonsense your brats learned at home.
I hope everyone hears the “crickets” in response to the links I posted and a hue and cry of personal attacks against me for posting the truth.
jc: I was thinking the same thing. There sure are lots of “idle rich” who post on these threads. If I had that type of income the last thing I’d be doing is arguing with “liberals.” There must be a long waiting list at the library for computer time today…
Check the “I saw you” section of The Inlander. Hawken placed an ad and I want to see if anyone else can figure out which ad it is.
Scoutster on June 27 at 10:19 a.m.
The point of this story is not as ideological as those who like to see t heir own posts would like us to believe.
Ultimately, this is a single, personal story.
The man DID get government services. He will be treated in jail.
He decided the price (incarceration) was worth it to get the care he needed.
Very resourceful and entrepreneurial.
woamike on June 27 at 10:31 a.m.
Wow,
A Marxist says “I’ll bet your travels are financed on my dime” and last week a lib (meadman) says “My bet is YOU don’t do anything to help anyone other than yourself… challenge is on woamike”
Either of you gents care to “put your money where your mouth is”?
I’ll bet the Marxist my annual salary I DON’T travel on his dime. I’ll bet the lib the amount of my charitable contributions last year I do help take care of other people.
Bluster is cheap fellas. You should stop the groundless accusations and “bets” or bring your wallets.
EP, you’ve never told us what business you’re in. “Medical” maryjane? Just curious. I won’t “bet” you… because I don’t know, unlike you (and meadman) who seem to know all.
johnclarke on June 27 at 10:32 a.m.
eagle - the EWU posting ?
woamike - who on the planet wants to give money to anyone? Like yourself I hate the concept of welfare fraud, or for that matter any kind of fraud. However, I don’t get the right wing’s obsession with it. I wonder if you can tell me how the cost of welfare fraud stacks up against corporate fraud? Why is no one flipping out over the Governor of Florida, who was nailed for ripping off Medicare? Hell, he got elected to office !
I just think your priorities are not in line with the real “costs.” We are spending 20 billion a year on air conditioning in Afghanistan. Over a trillion on 2 wars. AIG bailout. Wall Street bailout. Banking bailout. You are worried about welfare?
MrNatural on June 27 at 10:37 a.m.
Good Morning everybody…hope you had a nice weekend and that you all will have a pleasant week ahead
I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Pitts column today as it was as inspiring as “ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. “
Our nation will not remain strong morally or economically as long as pop culture politicians keep boorishly bloviating the preservation of private greed whilst erroneously blathering interpretations of the founding fathers while wrapped in the flag…
As Mr. Pitts more eloquently stated we have a higher calling and a moral obligation to support (fund) this nation to keep it great.
http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm
rkellie on June 27 at 10:38 a.m.
I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Pitts. Like him, i don’t enjoy paying taxes but it is the price we pay for being a part of a functioning society. Well said!
woamike on June 27 at 10:40 a.m.
The alleged teacher of our children says:
“I … work harder in the summer than I do when I’m trying to correct the nonsense your brats learned at home.”
Well, my “brats” are either in college or have already graduated, no thanks to the lould, proud and avowed Marxist and tax-avoider EP.
Well, people of Spokane? How do you feel about “teachers” like EP “teaching” your “brats”? Makes you want to go out and vote “yes” on the next schoold levy… NOT.
hawken on June 27 at 10:46 a.m.
Comrade Eagle:
Your misinformation has no limits…. I actually had to go to the Inlander online,,,,, “I Saw You,” to see what you were talking about.
I don’t read the Inlander and I have never even placed an ad on the same. My business ads are placed in much more productive venues.
Your perverse, sexual predisposition, relating to your liberal, smear campaigns is again demonstrated.
cheddar on June 27 at 10:49 a.m.
Eagleproducer, your charts only show a derivative of a population density reality: namely, that low-density areas require more funding per capita to maintain infrastructure.
What they totally fail to explain is the fact that those conservatives are at the same time calling for lower spending. To me, the MORE interesting plot would be Dollars spend per capita. THEN, let’s see how it breaks down. King county is home to some of the most wealthy corporations in the world, and it still just barely breaks even.. Pierce county is %25 in the hole, almost like Spokane county, even though it’s decidedly more liberal.
Just because data correlates does not mean it’s causative… That’s statistics 101.
hawken on June 27 at 10:53 a.m.
Comrade Eagle:
When my two adult sons, 34 and 32, were in school, you would never have been qualified nor hired to teach them. Thank God.
How things have changed drastically for the worst since then.
And people wonder why our education system is in such peril.
woamike on June 27 at 10:53 a.m.
JC,
Be careful, you may agree with me much more than you suspect - someone may accuse you of being a “bagger”.
I’m equally against coporate fraud, corporate welfare and CRONY capitalism. AIG and other bailouts? Not in a million years. I detest all crooked politicians and would throw them all out of office. The wars? I’d pull us out TODAY.
I’m not “just” worried about welfare and social programs, namely healthcare. But, that what this thread is about.
To answer your question, “who on the planet wants to give money to anyone?” Well, lots of people, including myself. I consider it a priviledge to give of my abundance (of my own free will) to those who cannot take care of themselves - government intervention NOT required.
jddavis on June 27 at 11:03 a.m.
MrNatural—I respect your opinion; My moral obligation is not throwing good money after bad.
Chedder—Eagle isn’t a stats teacher; go easy!
Woamike—my kids were taught at home how to think critically, and to understand the difference between facts, fiction, wishful thinking, and just plain non-sense. Valuable opinions are rooted in facts, not emotion.
JC—Good morning!
woamike on June 27 at 11:06 a.m.
MR. N,
“Whilst” you blather in and about your utopian fantasy land and denigrate those who fail to follow your liberal “religion”, the ship of state continues to take on water.
It’s time to stop re-arranging deck chairs, patch the boat and stop steering towards icebergs.
As for your “moral responsibility” and “higher calling”, don’t forget it REQUIRES the feds to take by force of tax law that which does not belong to them and give it to someone else that has no legitimate claim on it. That’s moral? Only in the twisted world of the modern lib.
detroitdude on June 27 at 11:07 a.m.
“Perhaps we spend more because we do in fact better have superior care due to epensive diagnostics, cutting-edge procedures and exotic, expensive to develop life saving drugs.”
Possibly, so why is cutting out the insurance middleman such a bad idea in this case? To be sure, the best neurosurgeons in the world are not here in this country, but in Switzerland.
“Perhaps we spend more because we spend untold millions on people who illegally cross our borders and parasite our “free” medical care.”
Most people who come here in search of care from say England or Canada, don’t take any of our “millions”, they have the money to buy the treatment they need up front. If it is Mexicans that you are talking about, how does it end up costing us more? If they are illegal, and have no insurance, and visit a hospital for treatment, they still get billed. It’s not like they just walk in and out with no identity.
“Perhaps our life expectancy calculation is a little lower because our young men kill eachother on a regular basis, die in wars, car wrecks, drug over doses and the like rather than living as sugar-cane farmers in Okinawa eating tofu and seaweed. I’m sure there are a number of reasons our life expectancy is not number 1 in the world, none of which that have anything to do with our quality of care or availability of health “insurance”. ”
Kill each other, die in wars, car accidents, drug overdoses….those things can and do happen in any country. We are no special exception to the rule. It is doubtful that all Japanese people are farmers in Okinawa eating seaweed and tofu. First, one of Japan’s major exports is beef, they like red meat just as much as we do. Second, I don’t know if you are aware, but Tokyo and Japan on the whole is one of the most expensive places to live on the planet, not to mention one of the most technologically advanced as well.
My point isn’t that with our current system we should be #1 on the list for life expectancy either. But we should be in the top 5 if not the top 10. But, 36th? For the system you all keep defending, these are pretty piss poor results.
hawken on June 27 at 11:15 a.m.
Great discussion and exchange from the opposing world views, which is critical to our future.
However, this might be the tipping point where the SR again, shuts down the string, based upon previous experience.
We’ll see.
jddavis on June 27 at 11:20 a.m.
Detroit you said: “Possibly, so why is cutting out the insurance middleman such a bad idea in this case?” It got me thinking.
The insurance middleman takes on the risk for a price (premium). I hope I waste my money on the premiums I pay, and that they come out on top.
I am certain I do not want the government taking on my risk, your risk, and the risk of everyone else. If the govt takes on the risk, they call the shots without an alternative entity to go to (unless you are in Pelosi’s district). If my health insurance companies don’t meet my needs, I will go somewhere else. If the government doesn’t meet my needs, to whom do I (we) turn?
hawken on June 27 at 11:48 a.m.
jd… as you know but didn’t happen to enunciate,,,,, “Government” takes on NO risk…. they just pass it on to the taxpayer, to only 50% of the people in this nation.
From an economic perspective, only 50% of the nation constitutes government,,,, the 50% that pay taxes.
The risk is limited to the 50% whom pay taxes and the No-risk is related to the 50% who don’t.
Scoutster on June 27 at 11:50 a.m.
JD…
If the insurance really were the middle men, then you are right and it would make sense to let them manage risk and assume rewards.
But fact is the govt, the people, are the ultimate risk takers unless the brokers and providers are forced to take all comers no matter what, which they are not.
If someone is dropped by private health insurance, where do they go? The govt. In this case, he took a creative path to govt support, but it worked and is likely to get repeated. So, we be paying for prison AND health care. Imagine this scenario being repeated a million times.
Unless we are willing to let people die for lack of care, the people—the govt—will be on the hook. Letting people die is a legitimate libertarian position, but one that we Americans have chosen not to take. (We, of course, are late to the game…the rest of the developed world figured this out a long time ago.)
Libertarian fantasy worlds don’t exist in America anymore than progressive welfare states.
hawken on June 27 at 11:54 a.m.
Scoutster:
Not the “American people,,,,” It’s 50% of the American people who actually pay taxes. As I noted above.
They are called “American Tax Payers”….. let’s be clear.
hawken on June 27 at 12:04 p.m.
We should modify our voter registration requirements.
If you don’t pay federal income taxes, you can’t vote for US Congressmen, US Senators and Presidents.
If you have no skin in the game, no vote.
It not only eliminates the freeloaders whom don’t pay taxes,,, because of dependency on government,,,,, it also eliminates the freeloaders whom don’t pay taxes, because of deductions, which is also dependence upon government.
Pay no taxes, get no vote. Pretty simple.
jddavis on June 27 at 12:06 p.m.
Scoutster
Ultimately, the people are the risk takers. What universal health care does is it facilitates the risk (responsibility) transfer from personal responsibility to “group” responsibility, and mandates that you become “more” responsible for everyone else; and for some, removes all personal resposibility and transfers it to everyone else.
Insurance “middlemen” are taking on respective responsibility for your health care. Medical care is available for those who do not have insurance and do not have the ability to pay. No offense, but I don’t want to be “responsible” for your or anyone else’s medical care by paying for it.
Hawken—exactly!
I am so tired of the entitlement mentality; where has personal responsibility mindset gone?
johnclarke on June 27 at 12:08 p.m.
woamike, no one will every accuse me of being a “bagger” because I actually make sense from time to time. I know that we agree on many thing. I know this thread is about taxes, but I don’t believe one should focus on just the welfare issue. I’ll have to get out my google, but let’s just spreadsheet the expenses and look at the total costs of ALL the fraud and pointless expenses. I’m of the opinion that way too much time and worry is spent on “all the freeloaders” and that 50% of the country “does not pay taxes”. BTW, should I take this moment to point out that 1) This is Bush’s tax plan 2) Those people don’t make enough to pay income taxes 3) Those people pay all sorts of other taxes.
“government intervention NOT required” - Have to disagree with you there. Certain things are simply too important to be left to public greed. Example; Social Security, Health Care, Regulation of Banks etc etc etc.
eagleproducer on June 27 at 12:12 p.m.
Actually Hawken, your two whelps received instruction from teachers far less qualified than many of the new teachers. The older teachers never had to pass state wide exams measuring proficiency in both subject area and pedagogy. They didn’t have to pass any statewide tests to prove proficiency in basic subjects. They were grandfathered from having to meet all of the qualifications and credentials it takes to become “Highly Qualified” under the No Child Left Behind Act. My state test scores, g.p.a. in college and the awards I received upon graduation are well above my peers and soar beyond those of the teachers who taught your brats.
wormlike: Blah, blah, blah… “marxist, Soros, Gates, Buffet, Jeremiah, The Weathermen, black panther, hyper left, Socialist, Communist, Stalin-lover, blah, blah, blah…” Talk about a broken record. I’ve stated what services my business provides on several occasions. Pay closer attention. As well, I have a vegetable garden that is close to 10,000 square feet that keeps me pretty busy while the children of our community regress about 1/3 of an academic year because we still rely upon a stupid education schedule born out of our agronomic past. People think education is expensive now, wait until year round schooling becomes the norm as it is in most developed nations.
The charts I provided don’t show a “derivative of population density.” (gawd, Orwell would have loved that one) The charts show that liberals pay more taxes and conservatives suck more services. That’s the bottom line. We are also smarter, better looking, funnier, more educated and of course, empathetic.
jc: It’s in the latest issue that focuses upon the homeless. Look for the “I saw you” with the heading “Logic’s (sic) Class.” Hilarious!
detroitdude on June 27 at 12:17 p.m.
@ Jddavis - Good point as far as the assumption of risk.
Hawken said: “Great discussion and exchange from the opposing world views, which is critical to our future.”
Agreed. Hopefully the thread does not degenerate into name calling as per usual by the usual suspects (myself included).
Scoutster on June 27 at 12:22 p.m.
JD..
I appreciate you don’t want to be responsible for my health choices.
That’s already been decided, unfortunately for you, and you already are on the hook. Read the sign at any ER.
Now, it’s just a question of rationing: deciding who gets what, which is what health financing IS all about, whether managed by the govt or by private ins (who just pass the most expensive people back to the govt eventually).
Hawken:
As to all those alleged 50% who bear the weight for everyone else, I would just say, if it’s so bad here, then: America, Love it or Leave it.
hawken on June 27 at 12:30 p.m.
Comrade Eagle:
We all see your condescending view of your imprisoned, victimized students….. per your terms they are “whelps” and “brats.” Very telling, don’t you think?
Good thing you have a teachers union to support your low view of students and parents, parents whom are forced, by government edict, to entrust to you the education of their children.
Your abuse is to the middle income and poor. Others, have chosen to “home school” their kids or put them in “private schools” at extra cost. To the benefit of their children.
How great is the Teacher’s Union!
BuRgEoNyT on June 27 at 12:37 p.m.
Hawken said: “Great discussion and exchange from the opposing world views, which is critical to our future.”
How is the traditional left/right argument critical for our future? Two pirates arguing about how to divvy up the loot is a far cry from the greater argument about how they got the loot in the first place. As we enter this new age of austerity, democrats and republicans will work together as the republicans get their way (services are cut) and the democrats get their way (taxes are raised) to lead us down the path of Argentina and Greece, where the screws are clamped down into the public as finance oligarchy uses masses of poor people to vote the middle classes’ wealth offshore through taxation. It’s no coincidence we see the ramping up of the police state and the media propaganda demonizing anyone standing up against this as an extremist; we are living an agenda.
woamike on June 27 at 1:58 p.m.
@EP,
So I take it you’re no longer claiming Hawken is a 17 year old running start student?:
“Actually Hawken, your two whelps received instruction from teachers far less qualified than many of the new teachers.”
What ever happened to all that “proof” you had he was a 17 year old kid anyway??
Re: your garden: Are you getting an ag exemption on your property taxes? Is weed considered a vegetable? I figured you’d know since you’re a PhD and all smart and stuff.
cdspokesreader on June 27 at 2:01 p.m.
Hawken said: “We should modify our voter registration requirements.
If you don’t pay federal income taxes, you can’t vote for US Congressmen, US Senators and Presidents.
If you have no skin in the game, no vote.
It not only eliminates the freeloaders whom don’t pay taxes,,, because of dependency on government,,,,, it also eliminates the freeloaders whom don’t pay taxes, because of deductions, which is also dependence upon government.
Pay no taxes, get no vote. Pretty simple.”
Gosh…. this takes me back to the days when women couldn’t vote and blacks who didn’t own property after the civil war couldn’t vote.
Seems a little elitist to me.
In all honesty, I would be curious to know if there were any voter demographics to show if these “freeloaders” actually take the time to vote. My guess would be no unless they have an issue they feel strongly about.
PlanB on June 27 at 2:16 p.m.
I think it is really sad that some people believe healthcare is for the privileged few, and that it doesn’t contribute to a stable, well functioning society. But one person also suggested that you should only be allowed to vote based on your income, so I guess the whole equal rights, equal representation, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness deal isn’t really taken too seriously.
woamike on June 27 at 3:12 p.m.
Plan B,
Google “straw man”.
or in this case, GIANT straw man.
hawken on June 27 at 3:31 p.m.
cdspokesreader
It’s called literary “hyperbole” to make a point.
The point has merit.
Here are some more famous examples of literary hyperbole:
Do you think mine will make the list?
cheddar on June 27 at 3:33 p.m.
Eagle, I’m saying the numbers are skewed because of the business-generated taxes coming from those districts.
As far as the tax idea, that’s really really easy. Implement the Fair Tax, then the issue goes away. http://www.fairtax.org
People than then decide for themselves how much they pay for taxes, and exemptions are completely gone. Then, and only then, will people REALLY be paying their “Fair Share.”
richard on June 27 at 4:24 p.m.
Eagleproducer says . . .
“We aren’t broke.”
Where did you get your degree in economics, EP? I am just curious because just about every serious economist - including the group who have recently quit working for Obama - tend to disagree with your conclusion.
Paying for all the entitlements -at least as currently constructed - is not sustainable. And the solution is a no-brainer - except for those who refuse to see the obvious and very compelling evidence.
All one needs to do is look at the big government, big union, big entitlement, high tax states and then compare them with the states - like Texas - which have low taxes, smaller government, fewer entitlements and have tax strtuctures good for business and youo will see a definite contrast.
The biig liberal states - California, New York, New Jersey, etc are in dire straits; while Texas, Indiana, Utah, etc which have conservative policies regtarding taxes, entitlements, and size of government are doing well.
Simple solution - if only the liberals and their free lunch bunch would go somewhere else to foul up the land.
CougarGold on June 27 at 4:55 p.m.
uhh…Richard…not to stand up for what EP has to say most of the time, I have to take a stand on the idea that Texas is doing well. Read this and it will help.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/texas-the-huge-state-budget-crisis-nobody-is-talking-about-535764.html?tickers=MUB,LQD,JNK,TLT,TBT,HYG,AGG
Texas is no better off than most other states and doesn’t have any wiggle room on the business v. union issues. I’d look for another example if I were you.
jddavis on June 27 at 5:17 p.m.
Scoutster—Fortunately for us, the SC will take the issue up.
You are correct about rationing. Unless the capacity to provide care increased proportionately to the new “demand”, access to care will go down.
gmorton on June 27 at 5:37 p.m.
Leonard Pitts wrote,
“I pay my taxes because this is how we the people pay for things we deem to be in our communal interest. This is how our military is sustained. This is how our children are educated. This is how our potholes are filled. This is how our libraries are stocked. This is how our police officers are supplied. This is how we take care of us.”
Ah, yes. The usual lefty red-herring response to tax complainers.
So let’s sweep it aside yet again.
No one is objecting to taxes *per se* Leonard (as I’m sure you know very well). They are quite willing to pay for necessary defense, police, courts, filling potholes, and providing other bonafide public goods.
They are not interested in financing all the *private goods* – free lunches – pols may decide to deliver to every hog with a vote who muscles his way to the trough, however.
But I realize that is a distinction you dare not make.
gmorton on June 27 at 5:55 p.m.
Scoutster wrote,
“As to all those alleged 50% who bear the weight for everyone else, I would just say, if it’s so bad here, then: America, Love it or Leave it.”
Not gonna happen, Scoutster. If anyone leaves it will be the parasites when the gravy train dries up, like fleas jumping off a dead dog.
Good riddance.
Jeffrey_Grey on June 27 at 6:01 p.m.
So by all means, please make the distinctions. Rather than your standard, vague ‘free lunch’, how about getting down to specific details?
What would you do away with - specifically? (And here I’m not asking for a long-winded sermon on the finer points of your dogma. I’m not in the least bit interesed in that, as you by now should know. Rather, I’m asking for specific programs. Social Security. Medicare. Public education. Farm subsidies. That sort of specifics.)
misjustice on June 27 at 6:07 p.m.
We need more general practice doctors.
Here’s an idea; if students graduating from medical school would agree to do 4 years (maybe more) working in underserved areas of this nation, their college would be paid for by taxpayers. Think of it as an investment in our nation’s well-being.
I had heard the story that Pitts retells here. I was immediately struck by the idea that a person would choose incarceration as a “health care plan”. I guess that desperate times require desperate measures…?????
Really? Is this the best that we can do?
In a nation of so much wealth, we allow people to go without medical care; and are rather proud of a system which delivers outcomes that put us on the chart ranking barely above Mexico. Why do we accept this?
Because lobbyists and fat cats with wallets full of money can buy a Representative or Senator to do their bidding on legislation, and the rest of us? Not so much…
I dunno, jail or no health care, jail or no health care, jail or no health care??? Years of incarceration and a felony record with access to health care OR freedom and no access to health care? Hmmmmm….tough decision….
And in closing I’d like to ad; Socialist, Communist, Maoist, Taoist, Muslim, Kenyan, Gay Agenda, Gay Take Over, Hyper-Liberal Left, Hyper-Left, Arugual eating and Chardonnay drinking, The Nation reading, Noam Chomsky lecture goer, ACLU/NAACP loving, Socialist, Communist, Weed Smoking, Socialist, Community Organizer, ObamaCare, Socialist, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Soros, Socialist, Hyper-Left, Liberal!
; )
gmorton on June 27 at 6:22 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“What would you do away with - specifically?”
Egads, Jeffrey, I’ve listed those in this forum at least 5 times. But here they are again:
Abolish outright:
* The Department of Education, and all of its programs;
* HUD, and all of its programs;
* The Department of Energy, and all of its programs;
* Transfer Medicaid and other HHS programs (such as TANF) to the States over 5 years, to fund to whatever extent they see fit and manage however they see fit. At the end of the 5 years federal involvement in those programs would be zero.
* Dozens of “minor” programs, such as subsidies to Amtrak, NPR, the NEA, NEH, NASA, scientific research not directly related to a governmental purpose, and all subsidies to business;
Also, redefine the purpose of the US armed forces, which should allow the defense budget to be reduced by 50%.
Those changes would balance the federal budget without touching Medicare or Social Security, although those programs need scrutiny also and will need to be revised eventually (rather soon in the case of Medicare).
gmorton on June 27 at 6:26 p.m.
Jeffrey,
In case you missed it, the connection among all of those programs on my chopping block is that none of them are mentioned in the Constitution as being among the powers granted to Congress.
gmorton on June 27 at 6:28 p.m.
Oops, left out farm subsidies, which also belongs on the list.
detroitdude on June 27 at 6:59 p.m.
“Ah, yes. The usual lefty red-herring response to tax complainers.
So let’s sweep it aside yet again.”
You blow off legitimate debate concerns, and it therefore invalidates your argument and any responders argument. Just because you “don’t think so” does not make someone elses’ argument any less credible until it is dis-proven, or proven to be a a non factor in the subject. I realize you don’t want the government to provide any “free lunches”, the fact of the matter is though, we are at certain point with which our electorate has decided that our government has a duty to provide social safety nets to disadvantaged, whether by their own fault or not.
Ask yourself this, why would this man just go and criminalize and incarcerate himself? Reasonable people do not do that, unless they feel trapped with no other options. This man chose a path I would not have, but I can’t hate on him for what it is he did by the objective achieved. Being the Constitutionalist you are, I am surprised you have not made an appeal that by sheer definition and gravity, his right to life and liberty HASN’T been violated.
Dazzeetrader11 on June 27 at 7:36 p.m.
J….that was tried in the 70’s as a “hook” to get balck students in the system. Didn’t work. Most played the reverse race card ( if they could even graduate…only half did) and claimed ( as usual) that the hwite man was forcing them into ghetto work (since they had agreed to go serve their own people).
They wouldn’t go ….nor would they honor their committments.
White kids spent lots of time in poverty programs honoring their agreement.
Many of the caucasians kids went to reservations, appalachia and to lots of poverty areas including ghettos.
Seems like most of the s-called disadvantaged are very happy to get free tuition but when it comes to serving…most want the nice neighborhoods for work…qualified or not.
detroitdude on June 27 at 7:48 p.m.
^^^^ Wow, just wow….It does not matter the color of your skin whether or not you decide to honor promissory agreements.
gmorton on June 27 at 7:57 p.m.
detroitdude wrote,
” … we are at certain point with which our electorate has decided that our government has a duty to provide social safety nets to disadvantaged, whether by their own fault or not.”
That is not good enough. The powers of Congress are not alterable by majority rule. Expanding them requires a constitutional amendment approved by 2/3 majorities in both Houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the States. How many of the programs on the “chopping block” above do you think could pass that test?
“I am surprised you have not made an appeal that by sheer definition and gravity, his right to life and liberty HASN’T been violated.”
No, it hasn’t, as far as I know. Who violated those rights of his?
No doubt you are laboring under the impression, as many lefties do, that your right to life entails a duty upon others to provide whatever you may need to sustain your life.
It doesn’t; it only precludes others from killing you, just as your right to your car precludes others from stealing or damaging it. It does not oblige anyone to buy your gas or tires, or repair it if you wreck it.
Dazzeetrader11 on June 27 at 8:33 p.m.
Detroit…you’re correct. But….the point is that only a fraction did in fact honor their contracts. US got wise and then went after the grads who didn’t honor their contracts. Unfortunately Ted Kennedy stopped the practice. Only an observation though…don’t be getting in a snit. The point was this: Back then the blacks were targeted because they had the loudest complainers…and the biggest champions too…….so we gave that group a way out. If you knew the 70’s, that group was always complaining about how the white man took advantage and “kept them down”. Lots of riots and the cities burned.
Simply put, it didn’t work. No accusations..it just didn’t work.
Sorry if you don’t like my description. If you are from Detroit though, go see the boys at Henry Ford..ask around. They will tell you what it was like then.
I never think Government handouts or “gifts” work very well. The “recipients don’t value the chances or they devalue the concepts as they think they are owed something. It’s the self starters I always look for. Those who have focus and prinicples. They excell because they work hard.
Taxes….well if you think rich (define that please) should be worked over and their money should be given to whomever the flavor of the month is, well…think again. We need disciplined, focused ,self starters. No matter the skin color, it’s that group that will be the leaders in the future. They know where they came from.
Scoutster on June 27 at 10:01 p.m.
gmorton…
there are many more fleas than dogs.
Arch_Druid on June 27 at 10:09 p.m.
And here I thought that taxes were invented by God. If you want a secular gvt, you gotta pay for it.
So, let us ignore the fact that a guy two years older than myself and being pretty much decrepit and disabled and possibly suffering a terminal illness can’t find any other means to draw attention to his plight except to “rob a bank” in order to get medical attention. Instead of actually showing some humanitarian consideration for this guy, let us instead engage in the usual atmospherics about taxes and gvt. Pretty appalling attitude coming from the vast majority of you guys.
Leonard Pitts has a Facebook page. Could suggest you guys “befriend him” and visit the odd assortment of opinions including that of utterly religious wacko views that come from some. But of course, after the guy declares his religious point of view, he still leaves out the fact that Jerome is still suffering… My response? A sad state of affairs for a so-called “Christian” nation. You guys need to get out of your particular hang up on the vast “partisan” divide and start caring about people again.
greenlibertarian on June 28 at 12:52 a.m.
Founders? Why the ink had hardly dried on the Hemp paper of the Constitution before they spreading the wealth and hiring government employee, had no idea the military-industrial-Congressional Complex began so early :
(1794) To keep labor costs down, government employees rather than by private contractors would build the ships, and construction sites would be distributed geographically in order to spread the economic benefit and win popular support. “It is just and wise to proportion … benefits as nearly as may be to those places or states which pay the greatest amount to its support,” Knox advised. Although it might be cheaper to build the frigates successively in a single place, “a few thousand dollars in expences will be no object compared with the satisfaction a just distribution would afford.
http://www.history.navy.mil/biblio/biblio4/biblio4a.htm
The first tax internal to the US in the fledgling government was passed by the Congress in 1790, a tax on whiskey. Westerners never much liked it and avoided paying whenever they could. By 1794, The Whiskey Rebellion was in full force, dozens of distillers were served with subpoenas, federal originally, and President Washington starting raising and deploying a Militia (some were conscripts) to the confront tax cheating, scoff-law deadbeats. It ended up being resolved mostly peacefully, but the point is, the Congress did pass the tax and it was signed by the President, and our earliest Founders were ready to enforce the law at the point of a gun.
In fact, Washington’s sixth annual address to the House, what we know today as the SOTU address, opened up on the grievous matter:
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3459
Also in 1794, numerous Founders including the President of the Continental Congress argued for $15,000 direct federal aid to help penniless refugee French citizens who had fled Santo Domingo to the US when the locals revolted and took over. Other Founders, famously Madison opposed on the basis of limited power of Congress under the Constitution. Eventually a compromise passed the Congress and was signed by Washington granting the aid to these “foreigners”, with the accounting trick of deducting the amount the aid from our existing debt to France, whom if they hadn’t helped us in the Revolution, those men wouldn’t even be standing there in Congress.
Point is, the General Welfare clause isn’t something set in stone by the Founders, not at all. Like many issues of the time, there were at least 2 strong factions and other outliers. That’s why the Constitution is the Grand Compromise.
But then most of ya’ll know more about the weather forecast for tomorrow, the stock market, and how the Mariners are doing, compared to understanding the governmental history of these United States.
gmorton on June 28 at 12:47 p.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“It ended up being resolved mostly peacefully, but the point is, the Congress did pass the tax and it was signed by the President, and our earliest Founders were ready to enforce the law at the point of a gun.”
That’s all true. But you left out an important fact: very little of that tax was ever collected from the Western distillers – not a penny in most Western counties – and it was repealed in 1800 as a lost cause.
The whiskey tax was the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, a warmed-over Mercantilist and America’s first statist. His determination to suppress the rebellion (he led the 12,000 troops himself) marked Hamilton as, in Jefferson’s view, “a dangerous man.”
“Point is, the General Welfare clause isn’t something set in stone by the Founders, not at all. Like many issues of the time, there were at least 2 strong factions and other outliers.”
No. There was only one “strong” faction on the meaning of the general welfare clause. The other “faction” consisted of Hamilton. In his Report on Manufactures he recommended tariffs on imported manufactured goods and subsidies for domestic manufacturers, in order to “promote the general welfare.”
The tariffs, being specifically authorized in the Constitution, were approved by Congress. The subsidies were rejected, on the ground that they were unconstitutional.
“But then most of ya’ll know more about the weather forecast for tomorrow, the stock market, and how the Mariners are doing, compared to understanding the governmental history of these United States.”
No argument on that point.
gmorton on June 28 at 6:12 p.m.
green,
The point of the above being that Hamilton’s construal of the “general welfare” clause was never adopted by either the Congress or the courts, until the 1930s, in US v. Butler.
BTW, not even Hamilton would have construed that clause as it has been construed in recent decades. His construal, though never adopted, preserved the distinction between the general welfare and private welfare.
Arch_Druid on June 28 at 9:44 p.m.
General welfare, GMorton was not a “clause” initially but rather was in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I can appreciate the history lesson, however, depending on the time, and further, how people chose to politically address their concept of promoting the general welfare; but I am certain that political influence had as much to do with to whom such a concept applied as well as how it would be applied. Thus, the swing between the wealthy, business interests, religious factions, common labor, women, etc.
But it doesn’t change the fact that if the fellow whom Pitts wrote about had not been forced into desperate measures because of circumstances beyond his control and actually had the assistance of neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. to help pull him through; it is highly unlikely that he would now be in prison on a bank robbery charge. You have to wonder why he didn’t have this kind of help. Where was the humanitarian concern when he most needed it.
gmorton on June 28 at 10:13 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
“You have to wonder why he didn’t have this kind of help. Where was the humanitarian concern when he most needed it.”
That’s a good question, Arch. Perhaps because all of his neighbors and co-workers now believe that helping others is the job of the State?