"higher" callings...

A couple of thoughts....

Sometimes I really wish I had a great filing system so that I could easily reference the things I've read. Unfortunately, I don't. So you will just have to take my word for the following, or not.

Thought one:

Once upon a time, some group decided to compare individual charitable contributions of the present to those before Roosevelt took office...and I don't mean Teddy. Accounting for inflation, etc., they discovered that the amount of money available for charitable contributions pre-Roosevelt from the government and individual donations (including joe tax payer) greatly exceeded the current amounts -- including every penny spent by every State and the Federal government on every form of welfare conceivable.

Basically, Joe Taxpayer now donates far less because he assumes what is taken out of his paycheck is sufficient. Unfortunately, given government bureaucracy, it is not.

Time and time again it has been proven that private enterprise can handle money much more effectively than any government. Most good charities keep their administrative costs under 10% of the total donated. I shudder at the thought of what that percentage grows to when the IRS, Congress, and various agencies, their laws, regulations, internal policies, etc. have all been factored into the equation. Just the amount of money spent on employing the people who write the regulations, determine the legality of the regulations, and then defend those regulations in court challenges staggers the mind.

Thought two:
Jean, Neil....have either of you evaluated the FairTax concept? No more income tax, inheritance tax, etc. 23% federal tax on all new purchases. Only new....used has no tax. General rebate to cover basic cost of living purchases (though this is where it gets sticky...what is basic? And of course, somewhere down the line, that will get increased, eventually resulting in a new income tax to cover the basics for all other people) Businesses, farmers, etc. that purchase items for their business, no tax. Sufficient income to cover all government programs currently in existence, and then some.

Thoughts three:
Welfare queens don't concern me. All government allocations will create windows for fraud. Just the way of bureaucracy.

What does concern me is the fifteen to seventeen year old girl who was raised on welfare and sees nothing wrong with it. So she gets pregnant, and then starts her own generation of the welfare family. America is in the fifth or sixth generation of welfare families. A temporary bit of assistance has become a lifestyle. The idea of "I am owed this" even though nothing has ever been put in. This is where the concept of dependency (laziness possibly, but I see it more as complacency) comes into play.

As to any person who works a seasonal job and expects the state to carry them for the other six....move. Migrational farm workers in the western states learned a long time ago that you follow the harvest. They also learned to encourage their children to get educated so that they would not have to work in the fields. [Please, no comments about field workers and the abuses they suffer. Before that idiot Brown cancelled the bursura program, most field workers came legally to the States for the harvest only, paid taxes, and then went back to Mexico to live in relative luxury compared to their "educated" brethren (i.e. teachers, clerks, etc.)]

Alcohol and drugs...not on my money. If I have to budget for beer because I'm paying for food for your family....you better be sure that money is spent on food. Welfare is for "necessities" and last time I checked, neither alcohol nor cigarettes were considered health enhancing (well, okay, except for those alcohol-heart studies)

There are people who need a little bit of help over the rough spots. As their fellow human beings, we should help them. However, it is not my job, or duty, or responsibility, to pay for the entire life of someone else.


Just food for thought, and mostly my own opinion...

Brenda

check out fairtax.org

James Davis, Jr. wrote: check out fairtax.org

FLAT TAX !!!!

Brenda Allen wrote: A couple of thoughts.... Sometimes I really wish I had a great filing system so that I could easily reference the things I've read. Unfortunately, I don't. So you will just have to take my word for the following, or not. Thought one: Once upon a time, some group decided to compare individual charitable contributions of the present to those before Roosevelt took office...and I don't mean Teddy. Accounting for inflation, etc., they discovered that the amount of money available for charitable contributions pre-Roosevelt from the government and individual donations (including joe tax payer) greatly exceeded the current amounts -- including every penny spent by every State and the Federal government on every form of welfare conceivable. Basically, Joe Taxpayer now donates far less because he assumes what is taken out of his paycheck is sufficient. Unfortunately, given government bureaucracy, it is not. Time and time again it has been proven that private enterprise can handle money much more effectively than any government.

I am sitting in the state that suffered through the deregulation fiasco that was directly tied to the Enron boondoggle. Subsidiaries of Enron, in concert with our governors, conspired to pull the wool over our eyes, claiming that deregulation would mean that we could use whatever energy company we liked, that big gov't would step aside and allow the market to decide who could provide the better service.

In reality, deregulation meant that greedy brokers could play fast and loose with supplying energy to consumers, causing blackouts and pocketing the money that already paid for this energy.

From my experience, gov't oversight of services is often inefficient, and overpriced. But, private contractors are less motivated to provide safe, efficient service because profit is the bottom-line mantra for these service providers. Given a choice btw profit or safety, a corporation will choose profit every time. They are legally bound to do so.

Another example, is "charter schools." San Francisco toyed with a private corporation (called Edison Corp) taking over a public school. Surprise, surprise: the teachers privately reported that they were pressured to emphasize good grades over understanding the material, and some parents noted a general decline of quality of materials (textbooks).

Edison had to get that bottom line, and damn the quality of education. It's the same story almost every time a private corp takes over what used to be a public municipality. In fact, this is the central problem with the Occupation in Iraq: private contractors with no oversight or the same restrictions as regular military are now in positions of doing the tasks that the military used to do. This war is unique in many reapects, but private contractors have made oversight and responsibility a murky area.

Jean, Neil....have either of you evaluated the FairTax concept?

No, I have not. I'll look into it.

What does concern me is the fifteen to seventeen year old girl who was raised on welfare and sees nothing wrong with it. So she gets pregnant, and then starts her own generation of the welfare family. America is in the fifth or sixth generation of welfare families.

What care I, about some young woman in need of counseling, in the face of huge welfare cheats like the Pentagon, which lost $5 BILLION dollars, and they have no idea (or so they say) where it went?

A temporary bit of assistance has become a lifestyle. The idea of "I am owed this" even though nothing has ever been put in. This is where the concept of dependency (laziness possibly, but I see it more as complacency) comes into play.

Think about a hospital. Sure, there are some malingerers in there; but would you suggest closing down the whole hospital because of a few bad apples?

Or, what about the joint contracting project in the basement, wherein the gov't gives a billion dollars for some questionable experiments that will likely never be used, and they occasionally "lose" huge chunks of this grant?

I don't know about you: but I would be far, far more concerned about that disreputable basement operation, than in closing the hospital to get to the malingerers.

The sad thing is that politician's seem to agree with your tactic. Forget about all the corporate handouts, they say. The "welfare queen" is the cause of it all.

In the late 19th Century, you might be surprised to know that pol's and groups were demonizing the poor in exactly the same manner; except that the evil backslider was the alcoholic. Well, temperance groups and Prohibition did not solve the world's problems, and cutting welfare doesn't seem to help the poor, either. Clinton did that in the '90's, and I still see the homeless suffering.

John Hogan wrote: FLAT TAX !!!!

I think Lassie's trying to tell us something...

("Ruff!"

"What is it, girl?"

"Ruff! Ruff!"

"You say that Jimmie's trapped in the bottom of the well?"

"Ruff! Ruff!"

"and you managed to get the jeep and winch and pull him out?"

"Ruff!!"

"and you have the bad guys tied up around the oak tree?"

"Ruff!"

"Good girl!")

Neil Mick wrote: I think Lassie's trying to tell us something... ("Ruff!" "What is it, girl?" "Ruff! Ruff!" "You say that Jimmie's trapped in the bottom of the well?" "Ruff! Ruff!" "and you managed to get the jeep and winch and pull him out?" "Ruff!!" "and you have the bad guys tied up around the oak tree?" "Ruff!" "Good girl!")

1st laugh I had all day....

John Hogan wrote: 1st laugh I had all day....

Excellent.

Lassie's back...

Looks like the Fair Tax is a little bit weak....

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/t...0510/index.htm



FLAT TAX !!

Yeah, I've been holding my opinion on that one so far...Smith, in "The Wealth of Nations," put some work into taxes and difficulties relating to them...However, I haven't gotten that far in the book, so, no sense in complaining about the consumption tax until I have an idea.

However, I believe that the paragraph:

Right now in Washington, a group of top policy experts and former lawmakers appointed by President Bush are hammering out a proposal to overhaul the tax system. Supporters of the FairTax, backed by a grassroots network of 600,000, have worked hard to keep their plan on the panel's agenda. The panel is holding public hearings in September, and the report is due at the end of that month.

is the author trying to strong-arm the consumption tax into relevance with Bush's overhaul.


I also think the "tax rebate" is a load of crap. Only because it's based on Federal figures ("experts" at work again) and, of course, it's a big country--one average is suitable for the whole country?

Neil Mick wrote: 1)I am sitting in the state that suffered through the deregulation fiasco that was directly tied to the Enron boondoggle. Subsidiaries of Enron, in concert with our governors, conspired to pull the wool over our eyes, claiming that deregulation would mean that we could use whatever energy company we liked, that big gov't would step aside and allow the market to decide who could provide the better service. 2)In the late 19th Century, you might be surprised to know that pol's and groups were demonizing the poor in exactly the same manner; except that the evil backslider was the alcoholic. Well, temperance groups and Prohibition did not solve the world's problems, and cutting welfare doesn't seem to help the poor, either. Clinton did that in the '90's, and I still see the homeless suffering.

I didn't notice you posted this till now.

On #1) Yup, and it's a damn shame that rather than the middle-class recognizing that that's the consequences with playing in the big-league and accepting it, they want everyone else to fix it.

If, rather than expect the government to hold their hand through the RISKY stock market, they stopped messing around with it, we'd probably have a cleaner environment, less hunger, higher employment and tighter knit communities BECAUSE they'd be forced to look for investment potential in the communities they know, rather than giving it to some clown CEO to globe-trot to a cheap-labor country.

The problem is that FDR threw away the opportunity given by the Great Depression to bring this country back from the cultural catastrophy that occurred with the slaughter of American men in WWI.

Hoover's philosophy of individual independence could have brought the "Brave" back to the home. Unfortunately, the welfare junkies (that's the poor and middle-class) swallowed the promises that de Toqueville (sp?) warned about in "Democracy in America."

Enron was the result of irresponsible investors disregarding human nature.

Maybe, if the President would of said that when it (Enron) happened, the people of New Orleans would of recognized that they're responsible for themselves and wouldn't of expected the government to clean up the mess caused by their poor voting practices or poor choice of living area.

2)I tell you, Neil, we're on the same page when it comes to Bush being a snake and the war being a bunch of B.S. However, I think that the result of the welfare state on the culture of the U.S. was beautifully illustrated by the refugees out front the dome when they were chanting "we want help."

Why weren't they chanting "We need help?" Or, "Please, help us?"

Because, people who dont' feel like they're owed, ask or express how they feel--they don't demand it.

Although welfare (SS, assistance, disability, etc.) have helped many individuals. The consequence is a severe decline in the culture to a state of entitlement and dependence.


Whoops, one other thing. I don't think that corporations and rich should get away with all the crap they do. However, two wrongs don't make a right...and that's what I think you're trying to imply.

If our people recognized their role in the government (and that can only happen when they no longer trust it--welfare, in all it's forms, encourages it) then the corporate and rich benefits would decrease.