Monday, October 08, 2007
Pay Up: What Is The Cost Of
How much should the Federal Government take from your paycheck? 30%? 50%? 75%? 85%? 95.6%? I ask because this topic came up in the comment thread at another blog.
A commenter likened a good government and a willingness to pay for it like a good meal. If you want a really good lunch, the comment went, do you expect a good meal for $1.99 or are you willing to drop some cash?
Well, the difference is that I know beforehand that if I'm going to drop some cash, I'll get a good meal at a famous steakhouse where dinner for two people, with adult beverages, is going to tally up to around $160.00. Yeah, that's right, dinner for two at $160.00 - that doesn't include the tip.
Here's the problem: we don't know how some of the idiots in Washington D.C. are going to spend our money. And those idiots are in both the Democrat and Republican party, make no mistake about it. There is no guarantee whatsoever that any politician is going to spend our money wisely, thus, just because they spend more is not indicative of a "good" quality of government.
Most of us are familiar with the pork of Republican Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, and his bridge to nowhere. We are familiar with Democrat Congressman John Murtha's pork spending. Stevens and Murtha are only two - two! - examples of reckless and wanton spending in D.C. And neither one of their pork spending is a good example of "good government," is it? I defy anyone to comment that supporting this kind of spending equals good government.
So, does Washington know how to spend our money better than we do? Does Washington spending more money make the government somehow "better"? Not in my book. But then, Liberals and Democrats love to spend money, don't they? They're addicted to spending money. They can't stop, they're hooked.
What is the price of good government? Is spending a lot of money a sign of a good, quality government? Not in my book. I'd be interested in reading your comments. Please add one, or two, telling me how much it costs to pay for a "good" government.
And how much should the government take out of your check? 35%? 60%? 99%? Should they take it all and then give us a rebate, based on what Washington thinks we "need" to "get by"? There's some folks out there who pretty much believe that this is how it should work. Boy, I hope none of them ever get elected to public office.
Labels: Can't Stop Spending
dave, let me talk to you about the whig party. the whig party believes in financial prudence and does not believe that one titular leader can be the voice for everyone in this country.
whigs believe that congress more accurately echoes your voice from your local area.
whigs never had an income tax, and never would have voted for it. you got into this problem by putting your faith with the republican party.
what did you get for that? higher government spending and you get to stand there and watch your fellow party members tell you you cannot smoke pot. you are in bed, with a bunch of fag-bashing, anti-drug,thumper mothers.
whigs did not care if you smoked pot and they never asked you to pay income taxes.
join the whig party today dave and leave those lying assholes in the dirt.
your blood chemistry will thank you for it.
So in the end it is not a matter of partisan politics, both sides will go through money faster than a drunk at a strip joint.
"you are in bed, with a bunch of fag-bashing, anti-drug,thumper mothers." -- I know this is just your attempt to bait me into an argument of circular illogic and I'm not going to fall for it. It is no more accurate than me writing that "all Dems and Libs are in bed with baby killers, abortionists, serial murders (like Tookie Wilson), and Tax and Spenders." - Well, okay, all Dems and Libs ARE Tax and Spenders, but the other items don't necessarily apply to every single Dem or Lib. It's not universal.
Nice try on your part to sucker me into another 25+ comment "go-around." I'm not falling for it.
It's the Rev Gisher and his gang who makes the point at his blog that, more or less, if you want a good govt then you need to be willing to pay for it. And I don't have a problem with that.
IT'S TO OVERPAYING that I am against and it's obvious we are overpaying when the pork spending on insane projects just keeps getting allocated and spent. A Brige To Nowhere - and all the other pork - is not indicative of "a willingness to pay for a good govt" - it's an example of overtaxation to the max.
Good pt on the ex-wives. They always want more money.
Thanks for visiting and commenting, as always.
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.