In May 2008, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, sponsored this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3221
which forced tax payers to insure up to $300 billion of refinanced loans for "distressed borrowers".
In January 2008, Pelosi sponsored this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5140&tab=summary
which imposed additional regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Then today, Pelosi said this shortly before the vote on the bailout act:
“Madam speaker, when was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion? It’s a staggering figure. ... But only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness. ... And now eight years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.... No regulation, no supervision, no discipline."
And after it didn't pass she said:
"We must work in a bipartisan way in order to have another bite at the apple in terms of some legislation,"
Is this lady a burden on our economy or not?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
Extremities, Existence, and Safety: Worrying Themselves to Death
Another retort to a questioning of whether or not taxation is necessary, is that it is an extreme viewpoint.
Ask yourself this in considering that position: Are the "liberals" who claim that George Bush is evil or that Republicans are selfish espousing extreme viewpoints? Are the "conservatives" who claim that Barrack Obama is evil or that Democrats are too loose with other people's money espousing extreme viewpoints?
If you only surround yourself with straight Democratic and/or Republican party line viewpoints, then indeed other viewpoints will seem extreme. But isn't banging your head against a wall doing things the same way over and over again a bit extreme?
Another retort to a questioning of taxation is that we're asserting that government should not be allowed to tax its citizens at all (and presumably therefore cease to exist).
The government does not exist solely to tax. We didn't have required Federal income taxes prior to the early part of the last century, and the IRS was even formed until the 1950s. Yet, the US government existed from 1776 through the 1800s and early part of 1900s...largely without personal income taxation.
The bottom line retort to a question of taxation's necessity is that the people who advocate it, state that they're willing to give up some of their income for safety assurances.
Which hits straight to the point of my position on taxation. They want other people (be it strangers, their family, their friends) to pay for their causes because it makes them feel good. They feel that this is ok. That selfishness, self-centeredness, and imposition of their will on others....is ok.
Which means that they must feel it is ok for other people to assert their selfishness, self-centeredness, and imposition of will on the government even if it affects them adversely.
Do you see any long term (or even short term) issues with this on the state of the union?
Ask yourself this in considering that position: Are the "liberals" who claim that George Bush is evil or that Republicans are selfish espousing extreme viewpoints? Are the "conservatives" who claim that Barrack Obama is evil or that Democrats are too loose with other people's money espousing extreme viewpoints?
If you only surround yourself with straight Democratic and/or Republican party line viewpoints, then indeed other viewpoints will seem extreme. But isn't banging your head against a wall doing things the same way over and over again a bit extreme?
Another retort to a questioning of taxation is that we're asserting that government should not be allowed to tax its citizens at all (and presumably therefore cease to exist).
The government does not exist solely to tax. We didn't have required Federal income taxes prior to the early part of the last century, and the IRS was even formed until the 1950s. Yet, the US government existed from 1776 through the 1800s and early part of 1900s...largely without personal income taxation.
The bottom line retort to a question of taxation's necessity is that the people who advocate it, state that they're willing to give up some of their income for safety assurances.
Which hits straight to the point of my position on taxation. They want other people (be it strangers, their family, their friends) to pay for their causes because it makes them feel good. They feel that this is ok. That selfishness, self-centeredness, and imposition of their will on others....is ok.
Which means that they must feel it is ok for other people to assert their selfishness, self-centeredness, and imposition of will on the government even if it affects them adversely.
Do you see any long term (or even short term) issues with this on the state of the union?
What about the roads?
A common argument for taxation is that because someone uses the services put forward by someone else's cause, that someone should pay for them. However, in this case, we are forced to use the services.
The roads and national defense argument is a common retort. Throw on to the pile other causes like forcing people to pay for the health care of others, and forcing people to pay welfare for others, and forcing people to pay for military offensive measures, and forcing people to pay for educating other people's kids, etc....and you should see where the dead end and cyclic cock-fighting takes you.
But addressing roads and military "defense" (not offense). I admit those are thornier issues. However, for roads, I can see why in the earlier part of the century, the short sighted approach was to make these Federal and State roads. While the option to privatize many roads would be nice, why not simply require people who want to drive on Federal or State roads pay for those services if you need/use them? You then get a voucher or ticket to ride as it were. Maybe even call it a "license". We already have DMVs in place to enable this. Want to drive on a road, pay for a license to drive on that road. I prefer the concept of tickets and vouchers. If you don't want to drive on those roads, don't pay for them. If you're caught driving on the road, you get fined or charged by the authorities (either private or government financed) policing the road. The important thing is, that you don't pay for the road outright through taxes.
As for those poor people who can't afford to pay for the road, well the taxes they don't have to pay for the road will be added income they can use to buy their license. And I'll make bet that many employers would include getting licensed for specific roads as part of a benefit.
Defense is another issue, will address that later.
The roads and national defense argument is a common retort. Throw on to the pile other causes like forcing people to pay for the health care of others, and forcing people to pay welfare for others, and forcing people to pay for military offensive measures, and forcing people to pay for educating other people's kids, etc....and you should see where the dead end and cyclic cock-fighting takes you.
But addressing roads and military "defense" (not offense). I admit those are thornier issues. However, for roads, I can see why in the earlier part of the century, the short sighted approach was to make these Federal and State roads. While the option to privatize many roads would be nice, why not simply require people who want to drive on Federal or State roads pay for those services if you need/use them? You then get a voucher or ticket to ride as it were. Maybe even call it a "license". We already have DMVs in place to enable this. Want to drive on a road, pay for a license to drive on that road. I prefer the concept of tickets and vouchers. If you don't want to drive on those roads, don't pay for them. If you're caught driving on the road, you get fined or charged by the authorities (either private or government financed) policing the road. The important thing is, that you don't pay for the road outright through taxes.
As for those poor people who can't afford to pay for the road, well the taxes they don't have to pay for the road will be added income they can use to buy their license. And I'll make bet that many employers would include getting licensed for specific roads as part of a benefit.
Defense is another issue, will address that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)