Our form of government relies on taxes, from the model of democracy which arose in New England in the 17th century and beyond. It occurs to one that the incredible economic strength our nation gives each and every one of us provides so many intangibles that create our personal wealth. Our education system, defense system, our infrastructure, our roads, hospitals, and countless things we all enjoy, and need, to lead full and productive lives. Isn't the cry of smaller gov'mt, cut taxes, and so on just a little disengenuous, and, well, selfish? We all share the burden, and the success, of a stable and well funded government. Without it, we would be a backwords place, seems to me Republican's "neocon" talk speaks to narrow minded selfishness, populist easy to understand rhetoric, that simply ignores the great strides we the people have created, and, appeals to our most selfish instincts.
2007-06-24 05:03:09 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I like to see some of the conservative answers you're going to get.
2007-06-24 05:07:47 · answer #1 · answered by cynical 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋
You are stretching.
The things you outline that are truly a benefit to the nation as a whole are not at issue.
What is at issue is the level of power a central government should have, and the mismanagement of our money.
The proposition of Big Government reduces the individual incrementally until all power is granted to the government over the individual.
Fed-state-county-community punishes the person. Turn it around and the person has greater control over one's life. That is what the majority of people would prefer.
I don't buy your selfish argument. I am not selfish, nor is any part of my family. What you propose is forced charity, that does NOT engender a charitable heart.
On a moral/spiritual level it is the person who is responsible for giving aide to fellow people. It is our personal blessing to make this choice. Handing that over to the government is not only theft of my money, but the stealing of my blessing.
The federal governments role is a relatively small role: Oversight and Protection. All other aspects should be dealt with more and more localization, to insure that the will of the people is met.
Furthermore, it is understood that the government is bad at managing our money . . . why would you give them more control and more money? They would overspend and do so poorly. How would this benefit the nation, or the nations people?
2007-06-24 14:55:48 · answer #2 · answered by Moneta_Lucina 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have absolutely no problem with taxation if it is equitable and is used for the things that you refer to - education, defense, etc. But, when it moves to redistributing wealth, I object. Penalizing an individual's achievement by disproportionately taxing them is unfair and unhealthy for the economy in the long run. The original design of our form of government did not include greater incursion and regulation of the individual. Our form of government was designed to be limited. It was not, and is not, meant to be something on which the individual should depend. You speak of our incredible economic strength. Well, that is the result of capitalism and the free market. Government control over the economy is, as you know, socialism.
2007-06-24 12:19:17 · answer #3 · answered by amazin'g 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, you are misinformed.
We expect each and every able bodied INDIVIDUAL to do their best to take care of themselves and make our country strong. The government was not established to take care of the individual but only to look after the best interests of the nation as a whole. By weakening the individual you weaken the nation. Only the things the government were created for ...national defense, roads, fire dept, police dept, etc...should receive funding from the individual, those things help the nation as a whole.Government has no right to rob an individual to give it to another individual, charity should be handled at a community level, with possible state aid. no federal government required.
2007-06-24 12:13:29 · answer #4 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
You have conservatives and libertarians mixed up. The Libertarian I agree with you; they want the government to do nothing but essential things and thus survive on what the government has accopmlished. The conservatives merely point out the rabid waste in government and want government to be effecient and "MORE" effective not less. They constantly believe (and face it they are right) that government (if operated right) could do far more with far less.
2007-06-24 12:16:57 · answer #5 · answered by netjr 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Conservative power brokers want these programs privaized so they can control them. An example of this is Bush's "faith based" programs that has resulted in no real services but huge tax free dollars to churches who use the money to further their political and social agendas. We've seen the privatization of Iraq by Hallburton and the corruption there.
And yes, I agree with you, these are the same people taking advantage of the tax codes, government contracts etc. etc. and it makes you wonder if their unbridled greed doesn't make them stupid. They are making money off the government but they don't want "services" for people who need it. It makes me sick to my stomach if I think about it too much. We are the greatest nation in the world and sometimes we act more charitable to third world countries than we do our own people.
2007-06-24 12:32:47 · answer #6 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Education, roads, foreign aid,and hospitals, etc. etc. aren't given the same amount of attention or the resources of war and the expedition of war. This is where the problems arise. The distribution of such funds. We can also replace the word funds with support.
2007-06-24 12:11:50 · answer #7 · answered by Don W 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
the government is full of fat, if scrutinized, most honest people would totally agree. there are10 bad or unnecessary programs for every good program. unfortunately nothing ever gets done about it.
2007-06-24 12:20:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The more power we continue to allow the feds to have, the more freedoms we will continue to lose.
I support smaller government on the federal level and more responsibility given to the individual states and municipalities. Let the voters decide what is and isn't good.
"We're doing this for your own good." , doesn't fly with me, and reeks of big government.
Thumbs down for not wanting the feds to control my life? Who are the hypocrites? LOLOLOLOL~
2007-06-24 12:09:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Its not greedy to try and make money, your life better; thats the whole point around Capitalism, if you dont like it go to Russia.
2007-06-24 12:08:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 7⤋