then by that philosophy, by implication, shouldn't they be the ones paying for the iraq war?
2007-10-20 05:25:32 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By that philiosophy -- yes.
The problem is -- people disagree on what the govt should pay for and what people should pay for themselves -- but almost everyone has some list of things that the think the govt should pay for, and some list that they don't want to pay for.
It all depends on what the person likes and approves of -- and what they don't approve of -- because pretty much across the board, people will support the govt paying for anything they approve of, and reject govt payment of what they don't like.
2007-10-20 05:52:11 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Let me give you an example of a government program and you are the adminstrator. Your job is to give out grants to people for rehab which will get them a 3 month stay in a facility.
Its the end of the month and you have one grant left to give out.
A guy wanders in to your office and slumps down in the chair without your say so. He tells you that he understands that you give out money for treatment. He says he needs some time off the streets and your program fits the bill. He meets all the necessary qualifications though it is obvious that he is not serious. You take his application and give him your card. The rules say that you have to notify him inside 24 hours.
30 minutes later another man walks in to your office. He waits for you to invite him in. He tells you that he is a drug user and former inmate. He never had a father and he just found out that he is the father of a 3 year old girl. On the verge of tears he says that he has to get his life together for the sake of his little girl. He tells you that you are his only chance for redemption.
What do you do? The rules say first come, first served. That is the government for you. A private organization can pick and choose who they help because they have to make the money go further. Government organizations can always call up for more money.
Do you see my point or do you even care?
2007-10-20 05:47:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, not that I agree with the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton and many other senators and Bush think this war is for our defense. Our constitution allows for defense of the country it does not provide for the ridiculous number of wasteful welfare programs.
If you want to help the poor, and there are not many, it is better to help them with private foundations. Government services are extremely inefficient. So don't think you help the poor by supporting the government social programs. These gov social programs are simply employment programs for the middleclasss to upper class. The money is spent on administration and buildings. Look at their office spaces, nice right?
2007-10-20 05:32:33 · answer #3 · answered by julio_slsc 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The united states spends about 1.2 trillion dollars on social programs, and about 490 billion every year on the military budget. All we ever end up doing is adding more and more social programs until we have such a massive re-distribution of wealth it becomes impossible for people to manage their own money (because the govt takes half of it) so they can save, invest and move up in society.
I think that if we cut the waste out of govt spending there would be much more room for conservatives to cut taxes and liberals to streamline their social programs at the same time. So I am not against social programs, but they are generally at the wheel of very inefficient govt bureaucracy's that have no real drive to provide good customer service, or to be efficient, or provide quality services because they don't have to worry about going out of business
2007-10-20 05:30:32 · answer #4 · answered by Ancient Warrior DogueDe Bordeaux 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋
1. The Iraq War is not a social program.
2. The Iraq War was OVERWHELMINGLY approved by BOTH Parties, and at the start is was OVERWELMINGLY supported by the general public.
Argl...you just defined a liberal as a hypocrite. The whole "tax cuts for the rich" by your own representation went to the blue states. If you truly did not want them, you can give them back. But that is not the democrat way...giving of the government funds is your way, but pulling out your wallet or giving of your time is not. Read "Who Really Cares" and get an eye opener.
2007-10-20 05:29:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 3⤋
it relatively is the innovative earnings tax that reasons us to waste our time arguing with one yet another over bullshit questions like this. If we had a "flat" Federal earnings tax, the place all human beings paid earnings tax on the comparable fee, then the tax may be proportional fairly than innovative, and it would sound lots much less like "do no longer tax you, do no longer tax me, tax that fellow in the back of the tree" than the innovative earnings tax does. yet otherwise of defusing those classification warfare-form questions may be to tax all human beings the comparable dollar quantity for a definite application. inspite of each and every little thing, those with larger earning, or extra desirable wealth, are not charged extra for a McDonald's or Wendy's cheeseburger, or a Mustang convertible, than those with decrease earning, or much less wealth, are they? that's unquestionably the way person fees (as adversarial to taxes), such because of the fact the tolls charged on toll highways, paintings in prepare.
2016-10-04 05:34:56 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are paying by the lives of our Solders. 70 percent are Conservatives in the Military. Is there a greater price to be paid??
2007-10-20 05:39:45 · answer #7 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What good are your social programs when you are blown to pieces by a suicide bomber?
And remember your social programs are already being paid for by rich republican conservatives and those same people are paying for the war too, because the dirty little secret is, the rich pay the major majority of taxes and the poor pay very little, so when you are in the 65% tax bracket you can start complaining about where your tax dollars go.
2007-10-20 05:29:29 · answer #8 · answered by Curtis 6 · 8⤊ 3⤋
Funny you go to the war rather than pointing out the if they are social programs, you wouldn't be paying for them yourself--the government would, taxes notwithstanding. THAT'S what's laughable about the statement. You'd think, being the "smarter liberal" you would have picked up on that.
At least The Thing and I get it.
2007-10-20 05:31:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
The defense and security interests of this Nation are spelled out in the Constitution.
Can you show me where the Constitution discusses social programs?
2007-10-20 05:33:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋