Forum Post: The liberal contradiction
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 9, 2011, 12:40 p.m. EST by ThatOneGuy
(51)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
you guys want to live in the land of milk and honey, peace love and hair grease. it's private investment that built and runs the university you learned in. socialism does not invent or innovate. it's those ads you love to hate on the web that make it free for you to express yourself every fkn day. it's war that prevented the death of an untold amount of jews. it's war that gave you the country you live in today.
Forum reply: The conservative contradiction
The U.S. spends more for war annually than all state governments combined spend for the health, education, welfare, and safety of 308 million Americans.
Joseph Henchman, director of state projects for the Tax Foundation of Washington, D.C., says the states collected a total of $781 billion in taxes in 2008.
For a rough comparison, according to Wikipedia data, the total budget for defense in fiscal year 2010 will be at least $880 billion and could possibly top $1 trillion. That’s more than all the state governments collect.
Henchman says all American local governments combined (cities, counties, etc.) collect about $500 billion in taxes. Add that to total state tax take and you get over $1.3 trillion. This means Uncle Sam’s Pentagon is sopping up nearly as much money as all state, county, city, and other governmental units spend to run the country.
If the Pentagon figure of $1 trillion is somewhat less than all other taxing authorities, keep in mind the FBI, the various intelligence agencies, the VA, the National Institutes of Health (biological warfare) are also spending on war-related activities.
A question that describes the above and answers itself is: In what area can the Federal government operate where states and cities cannot tread? The answer is: foreign affairs---raising armies, fighting wars, conducting diplomacy, etc. And so Uncle Sam keeps enlarging this area. His emphasis is not on diplomacy, either.
For every buck spent by the State Department, which gets some $50 billion a year, the Pentagon spends $20. As for the Peace Corps, its budget is a paltry $375 million---hardly enough to keep the Pentagon elephant in peanuts.
..............................
U.S. War Spending Now Exceeds That Of All States http://antemedius.com/content/us-war-spending-now-exceeds-all-states
[Removed]
[Removed]
“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money” – Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain
OWS just doesn't get it. The money has to come from someone.
Okay, so where is it right now?
True. Seriously though, you can't be satisfied with the state of the economy and political landscape.
The economy scares the living shit out of me! Everyone and every government is going deeper and deeper into debt every day. Where the hell is all the money going to be coming from?
And, I'm absolutely dissatisfied with the political system. That's the point I've been trying to make in these forums. OWS always attacks the "rich" when it's the corrupt political system created by those inside the DC beltway that is the root of the problem.
The current tax code should be scrapped. No loopholes, tax breaks, tax credits, etc., etc. Either a flat tax or progressive tax on all income. Flat verses progressive tax is another debate that I truly don't care about. But let's stop the tricks.
DC & Corporate America do a crooked tango - Investment banks provide markets for politicians, who are not covered by insider trading rules - and they both get rich. nearly every major Corp has "Politician Management" platforms to smooth out their legislative risk in their markets. Additionally, the politician only has a narrow scope of influence, whereas the corporation has a global perspective. They both game the system for their own greedy selves.
Bottom line,make the politicians quit taking the money and problem solved. It takes two to Tango so if one declines there is no dance.
Ok. Then what's the incentive for your politician to listen to you if you can't raise funds for them?
I think you meant can't instead of can. Are you saying you want to keep the money in the game? If all campaigns were publicly funded with each person running given the same amount of money based on the position they're running for perhaps we'd get people interested in doing the job for the people instead of big business. See getting the money out of politics is one of the few things I (and many other conservatives) agree with OWS on.
Thanks for the edit. I think you're spot on, and like you, I'm looking to reduce the perversion of our public officials by Corporate Citizens. That being said, in balance, I'm a fan of the American business achieving great success; but not by gaming the system of democracy. How then can one change that? Not all corporations are bad actors - I say let them raise funds for their Gal / Guy in Washington.
Well said.
Right now the money is coming from rich 1% elitists socialists who are pulling the strings, and OWS hypocritically accepts it.