If people were allowed to choose where tax money went?

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by 6_Dead_360s (1663 posts) -

This is all hypothetical, but lets say the government no longer had control of how it spent the money it receives through taxes--instead, people that pay taxes, while still required to pay them, can now actively choose and know where and what every dollar they pay goes to.

The programs that are funded by taxes would now be forced to justify their existence and would have to prove their level of necessity. Programs that aren't beneficial would become uncompetitive, and would either reform or just disappear, cleaning up resource drains and improving efficiency.

I have no idea how it could work, but what is so wrong with this? Is it too idealistic?

#2 Posted by deeliman (2391 posts) -

It's extremely unpractical to the point of being impossible.

#3 Edited by Serraph105 (27822 posts) -

@6_Dead_360s said:

This is all hypothetical, but lets say the government no longer had control of how it spent the money it receives through taxes--instead, people that pay taxes, while still required to pay them, can now actively choose and know where and what every dollar they pay goes to.

The programs that are funded by taxes would now be forced to justify their existence and would have to prove their level of necessity. Programs that aren't beneficial would become uncompetitive, and would either reform or just disappear, cleaning up resource drains and improving efficiency.

I have no idea how it could work, but what is so wrong with this? Is it too idealistic?

I like it, but yes it's arguably too idealistic. Look at the sheer number of things our tax dollars go to, and you will see why the saying "Ain't nobody got time for that!" holds true for why this wouldn't really work.

http://mibi.deviantart.com/art/Death-and-Taxes-2007-39894058

#4 Edited by Serraph105 (27822 posts) -

Let's see if I can get that whole pic in one post.

edit. nope, damn

#5 Edited by deeliman (2391 posts) -

@6_Dead_360s said:

This is all hypothetical, but lets say the government no longer had control of how it spent the money it receives through taxes--instead, people that pay taxes, while still required to pay them, can now actively choose and know where and what every dollar they pay goes to.

The programs that are funded by taxes would now be forced to justify their existence and would have to prove their level of necessity. Programs that aren't beneficial would become uncompetitive, and would either reform or just disappear, cleaning up resource drains and improving efficiency.

I have no idea how it could work, but what is so wrong with this? Is it too idealistic?

I like it, but yes it's arguably too idealistic. Look at the sheer number of things our tax dollars go to, and you will see why the saying "Ain't nobody got time for that!" holds true for why this wouldn't really work.

http://mibi.deviantart.com/art/Death-and-Taxes-2007-39894058

Even if they did have the time, they'd be too ignorant to know where the money should go.

#6 Edited by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

It would be an unmitigated disaster and severely fuck up your government and country.

#7 Edited by dave123321 (33784 posts) -

No no no

#8 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -

It would be an unmitigated disaster and severely fuck up your government and country.

This. It would be a logistical nightmare.

#9 Edited by Serraph105 (27822 posts) -

I will also say that there is a reason why we have turned this sort of thing into an actual job for elected officials, and that is because it is a huge undertaking. Asking people to do it for free is vastly unreasonable.

#10 Posted by deeliman (2391 posts) -

I will also say that there is a reason why we have turned this sort of thing into an actual job for elected officials, and that is because it is a huge undertaking. Asking people to do it for free is vastly unreasonable.

Thinking they'll do a good job is even more unreasonable.

#11 Posted by ad1x2 (5508 posts) -

Such a thing would be a disaster not only because most people are too ignorant to make informed decisions on where the money should go, but the more informed would take money from departments they simply don't like regardless of their actual usefulness. For example, pacifists would want to take money from the military, pro-illegal immigration people would want to take money from the border control, pro-illegal drug people would want to take money from the DEA, anti-government assistance people would want to defund entitlement programs, etc. There are too many different opinions to ask 300 million people to agree on where tax dollars should go.

#12 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -

100% of my taxes to death star development!

#13 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

Pay me the same as a Congressman and I'll do whatever the hell you want.

#14 Edited by Brain_Duster (390 posts) -

I am also in support of the Death Star plan.

#15 Edited by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Such a thing would be a disaster not only because most people are too ignorant to make informed decisions on where the money should go, but the more informed would take money from departments they simply don't like regardless of their actual usefulness. For example, pacifists would want to take money from the military, pro-illegal immigration people would want to take money from the border control, pro-illegal drug people would want to take money from the DEA, anti-government assistance people would want to defund entitlement programs, etc. There are too many different opinions to ask 300 million people to agree on where tax dollars should go.

This. 'Nuff said.

#16 Edited by CrimsonBrute (23257 posts) -

100% of my taxes to death star development!

I think we need to first invest in lightsabers before investing in planet destroying space stations.

#17 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Back to the poor and to the people who need it most, actually helping people to make the world a better place instead of making the Government stronger who fund illegal wars, and cause mass suffering for their agenda.

#18 Edited by pie-junior (2821 posts) -

@comp_atkins said:

100% of my taxes to death star development!

I think we need to first invest in lightsabers before investing in planet destroying space stations.

-Build a deathstar

-Extort the other sentient beings in the universe for lightsaber technology and any other geek bling your heart desires

#19 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

This is all hypothetical, but lets say the government no longer had control of how it spent the money it receives through taxes--instead, people that pay taxes, while still required to pay them, can now actively choose and know where and what every dollar they pay goes to.

The programs that are funded by taxes would now be forced to justify their existence and would have to prove their level of necessity. Programs that aren't beneficial would become uncompetitive, and would either reform or just disappear, cleaning up resource drains and improving efficiency.

I have no idea how it could work, but what is so wrong with this? Is it too idealistic?

That assumes that people are going to make their decisions based on whether or not a program is necessary or competitive and that those decisions will be well-informed. Besides, the likely outcome even if everything did work perfectly in that regard, which it most certainly would not, would be that the differing interests among taxpayers would leave most programs underfunded. There's sure to be plenty of Americans who would dump all their money into anti-abortion measures and tax breaks, and plenty more who would dump their money into healthcare coverage and environmental protection. The net outcome would probably be that neither side would get adequate funding for the things they want. That's not even counting the fact that a large portion of the country could cut funding for, say, the TSA because they disagree with their security measures and end up inadvertently defunding other useful services the organization provides. And how would you operate all this? Ask the country to send in a ballot with their tax form? It's a massive bureaucratic nightmare.

#20 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Uk Government are a bunch of snobby twats who only think about how much money they can take from the people for themselves.

#21 Posted by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

It would be an unmitigated disaster and severely fuck up your government and country.

What do you mean would?

Our government is already F'd up.

#22 Posted by dave123321 (33784 posts) -
#23 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Such a thing would be a disaster not only because most people are too ignorant to make informed decisions on where the money should go, but the more informed would take money from departments they simply don't like regardless of their actual usefulness. For example, pacifists would want to take money from the military, pro-illegal immigration people would want to take money from the border control, pro-illegal drug people would want to take money from the DEA, anti-government assistance people would want to defund entitlement programs, etc. There are too many different opinions to ask 300 million people to agree on where tax dollars should go.

Well, some of those departments shouldn't even exist.

DEA is already a waste of tax dollars, and immigration is a joke. They only pick on the Mexicans, but not the white-skin Cubans that take over south Florida.

I would probably cut military spending, and focus more on social programs. I would probably cut welfare too; the illegal immigrants prove there's no need for Section-8, or food stamps. Though I probably like the idea of food stamps too much to cut funding.

#24 Posted by Bardock47 (5239 posts) -

Pay off China...or lease them Iowa.

#25 Posted by ad1x2 (5508 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Such a thing would be a disaster not only because most people are too ignorant to make informed decisions on where the money should go, but the more informed would take money from departments they simply don't like regardless of their actual usefulness. For example, pacifists would want to take money from the military, pro-illegal immigration people would want to take money from the border control, pro-illegal drug people would want to take money from the DEA, anti-government assistance people would want to defund entitlement programs, etc. There are too many different opinions to ask 300 million people to agree on where tax dollars should go.

Well, some of those departments shouldn't even exist.

DEA is already a waste of tax dollars, and immigration is a joke. They only pick on the Mexicans, but not the white-skin Cubans that take over south Florida.

I would probably cut military spending, and focus more on social programs. I would probably cut welfare too; the illegal immigrants prove there's no need for Section-8, or food stamps. Though I probably like the idea of food stamps too much to cut funding.

While I'm not a big fan of the war on marijuana (never tried it but I know plenty of people to include immediate family members who have) the DEA still has a purpose with the hard drugs. I could care less about some druggie killing his own body snorting cocaine but when that druggie is not feeding his kids or robbing people to get money for his next fix it becomes a problem.

As for the Cubans, if you have a problem with that write your Congressman and have him push to get the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 repealed. It's not just Cuba, pretty much anybody who escapes from a country we have an embargo with is almost guaranteed amnesty as long as they aren't obviously a spy or terrorist. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico, so that's why they are targeted.

Military spending is already being cut by billions, cut it anymore and the military might have to cut pay, which will end up resulting in a lot less volunteers and a possible draft to make up for lost volunteers. I would get rid of the fiscal year crunch they are forced to go through, where if a department doesn't spend their whole budget for the year they get less money for the following year, which encourages wasteful spending to maintain the following year's cash.

#26 Posted by playmynutz (5981 posts) -

My taxes would go to hospitals, firefighters, and road maintenance, that is absolutely it.

#27 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@playmynutz: Good luck with that if you're unwilling to pay someone to distribute the funds.

#28 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Military spending is already being cut by billions, cut it anymore and the military might have to cut pay, which will end up resulting in a lot less volunteers and a possible draft to make up for lost volunteers. I would get rid of the fiscal year crunch they are forced to go through, where if a department doesn't spend their whole budget for the year they get less money for the following year, which encourages wasteful spending to maintain the following year's cash.

What's the point in having such a large reserve? Worst case scenario they can just mandate another draft is need be.

The problem with the military isn't necessarily the amount of money they get I dislike, but their wasteful spending. It takes them $100,000 to build an RC car with a camera, but I can do the same thing at walmart with $500 bucks.

#29 Edited by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

It would be an unmitigated disaster and severely fuck up your government and country.

What do you mean would?

Our government is already F'd up.

No, your government is functional but indecisive. If you had spending by direct democracy, it would be indecisive and dysfunctional.

#30 Posted by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

No, your government is functional but indecisive. If you had spending by direct democracy, it would be indecisive and dysfunctional.

Functional? This government constantly screws up what ever it is that it touches. The three branches look like a soap opera ready for cancellation. The people? Besides the majority being sheep, the politicians don't figure them into the equation. Christ almighty, this government can't even get a full functioning website in operation after having a few years to get it done.

Dysfunctional, by even a rudimentary definition, is a perfect adjective describing this government.

#31 Posted by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

Government's primary goal shouldn't be efficiency as seen in the private sector. A company can justify axing a programme to it's shareholders by saying it is not very good value. The government can't just cut because their is no monetary value in it, e.g. things like research grants and science programmes would probably be immediately de-funded because the public don't think they are good 'value'.

#32 Edited by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

@Barbariser said:

No, your government is functional but indecisive. If you had spending by direct democracy, it would be indecisive and dysfunctional.

Functional? This government constantly screws up what ever it is that it touches. The three branches look like a soap opera ready for cancellation. The people? Besides the majority being sheep, the politicians don't figure them into the equation. Christ almighty, this government can't even get a full functioning website in operation after having a few years to get it done.

Dysfunctional, by even a rudimentary definition, is a perfect adjective describing this government.

The U.S. government is quite functional, it's just that your definition of dysfunctional is "one utterly massive IT program works badly during the 1st month after its launch in the middle of a government shutdown". And if you think that's bad, try to imagine how it's going to turn out when almost all government programs basically run worse than Obamacare now due to lack of funds and the ones that do work have about three times more money than they actually need. And that's assuming that there are enough people with enough foresight to remember to allocate funds for the administrative program that is responsible for tracking the tax dollar allocations of over 150 million workers.

#33 Posted by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

Obamacare is only one problem. Our government constantly runs a deficit, has over seventeen trillion dollars in debt, less people in the workforce since the 70's, 40 million people on food stamps, high unemployment, constant meddling in the affairs of others, waste and fraud running wild, etc..,

These meanings of the word "dysfunctional" are quite appropriate:

1.not performing normally, as an organ or structure of the body; malfunctioning.

2.having a malfunctioning part or element: It is hard to get bills through a dysfunctional congress.

3.behaving or acting outside social norms: All the siblings in their extremely dysfunctional family lost contact as adults.
#34 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

Obamacare is only one problem. Our government constantly runs a deficit, has over seventeen trillion dollars in debt, less people in the workforce since the 70's, 40 million people on food stamps, high unemployment, constant meddling in the affairs of others, waste and fraud running wild, etc..,

These meanings of the word "dysfunctional" are quite appropriate:

1.not performing normally, as an organ or structure of the body; malfunctioning.

2.having a malfunctioning part or element: It is hard to get bills through a dysfunctional congress.

3.behaving or acting outside social norms: All the siblings in their extremely dysfunctional family lost contact as adults.

Haha you really are one of those ignoramuses who blame the government for things that it doesn't really have much control over or exaggerates its flaws. Most of the problems you cited were caused by the recession, long-term demographic trends and some shoddy decisions by the previous administration. This is like saying that the U.S. government was dysfunctional in World War II because national debt soared to 110% of GDP (a higher ratio than today) and half a million Americans died, your statements are useless and meaningless because they completely ignore that very important thing called context.

All you need to do to determine if the U.S. government is functional is to see whether it's still capable of improving American living standards, defending the country, ensuring the political representation of the American people and maintaining the American national identity. By all these measures it is far more than functional - it outperforms most other states on the planet. Is the U.S. government politically hamstrung and less effective than it could be? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is very capable of performing all of its major roles. In a system like what the T.C. proposed it wouldn't be able to handle most of them due to shitty resource allocation.

#35 Edited by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

Haha you really are one of those ignoramuses who blame the government for things that it doesn't really have much control over or exaggerates its flaws. Most of the problems you cited were caused by the recession, long-term demographic trends and some shoddy decisions by the previous administration. This is like saying that the U.S. government was dysfunctional in World War II because national debt soared to 110% of GDP (a higher ratio than today) and half a million Americans died, your statements are useless and meaningless because they completely ignore that very important thing called context.

All you need to do to determine if the U.S. government is functional is to see whether it's still capable of improving American living standards, defending the country, ensuring the political representation of the American people and maintaining the American national identity. By all these measures it is far more than functional - it outperforms most other states on the planet. Is the U.S. government politically hamstrung and less effective than it could be? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is very capable of performing all of its major roles. In a system like what the T.C. proposed it wouldn't be able to handle most of them due to shitty resource allocation.

I'll make it very simple for you.

Tell me what the government does well. Better yet, tell me what the government does better than the private sector. About the only thing I can think of is the military and that is even pushing it.

We are not involved in a World War. So your comments about debt to GDP ratio are meaningless. Our government spends too much money for all of the wrong reasons. Some of those reasons include being the world's police force, believing it should be in control of as much of our lives as possible, class warfare, etc..,

The government has much control over that which is fudged up but the sheep (you included) tend to believe the government is only responsible when, on the rare occasion, things go smoothly. The spending is all on the Congress. Interfering in the affairs of others (foreign and domestic) is all on the Congress and President. The piss poor business climate is attributed to the government with its over-regulations. taxes, etc.., Sheep like you don't want to hold this government responsible for what is rightfully deserving.

Above you clearly acknowledged the government put us in our current mess. Whether or not you know is a different story. BTW, according to the current administration the recession has been over for a few years now.

If our problems are not the fault of the politicians who run the country and make the laws, who gets the blame?

#36 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Military spending is already being cut by billions, cut it anymore and the military might have to cut pay, which will end up resulting in a lot less volunteers and a possible draft to make up for lost volunteers. I would get rid of the fiscal year crunch they are forced to go through, where if a department doesn't spend their whole budget for the year they get less money for the following year, which encourages wasteful spending to maintain the following year's cash.

What's the point in having such a large reserve? Worst case scenario they can just mandate another draft is need be.

The problem with the military isn't necessarily the amount of money they get I dislike, but their wasteful spending. It takes them $100,000 to build an RC car with a camera, but I can do the same thing at walmart with $500 bucks.

The problem with a draft is that many would not go or would do what they could so they couldn't be called up. Just look back at the 60s when we last had an active draft. An all volunteer military gets better people over a drafted one. The only way to alleviate that is make military service mandatory for everyone just like other countries do and ensure that there are no deferments to service. Still, there would be objection to that.

As far as that $500 RC car that you could build from stuff from Wal Mart, it would not have the capabilities that the more expensive one has. That Wal Mart car may have a range of 200 yards whereas that $100,000 car has a range of 2 miles. Your cheap car would get blown up, the more expensive one doesn't. The cheap car cannot be used in inclement weather, the more expensive one can.

#37 Posted by tocool340 (20487 posts) -

I think if everyone was more educated about the many things tax money goes to, it could workout. Perhaps once every....let's say 4 years during election time, everyone gets a pamphlet mailed to their house that provides information about most of the things tax payer money goes to. HOWEVER, every year during tax time all citizens whom has paid taxes get's a chance to specify where they want their tax money to go by filling out an online form. Some departments (Like military or medical) should and will get a bare minimal percent of tax payer money by default (Even if the amount is as low as a few fvcking cents), but will still appear on the form. For those that decide not to fill out the online form within 30 days, their tax money will default to whatever the government decides to do with it....

Its just an idea, even if a bit terrible considering all the implications it can cause (I can think of a few). But I figure...eh, why not throw it out there anyways...

#38 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@WhiteKnight77 said:

@Fightingfan said:

@ad1x2 said:

Military spending is already being cut by billions, cut it anymore and the military might have to cut pay, which will end up resulting in a lot less volunteers and a possible draft to make up for lost volunteers. I would get rid of the fiscal year crunch they are forced to go through, where if a department doesn't spend their whole budget for the year they get less money for the following year, which encourages wasteful spending to maintain the following year's cash.

What's the point in having such a large reserve? Worst case scenario they can just mandate another draft is need be.

The problem with the military isn't necessarily the amount of money they get I dislike, but their wasteful spending. It takes them $100,000 to build an RC car with a camera, but I can do the same thing at walmart with $500 bucks.

The problem with a draft is that many would not go or would do what they could so they couldn't be called up. Just look back at the 60s when we last had an active draft. An all volunteer military gets better people over a drafted one. The only way to alleviate that is make military service mandatory for everyone just like other countries do and ensure that there are no deferments to service. Still, there would be objection to that.

As far as that $500 RC car that you could build from stuff from Wal Mart, it would not have the capabilities that the more expensive one has. That Wal Mart car may have a range of 200 yards whereas that $100,000 car has a range of 2 miles. Your cheap car would get blown up, the more expensive one doesn't. The cheap car cannot be used in inclement weather, the more expensive one can.

That's not true; kids have sent things to outer space. Plus, some soilders already use my methods to save lives.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/19/phonesat-high-school-students-tuesday/

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/08/cam-wielding-rc-car-used-to-investigate-roadside-bomb-saves-liv/

Besides, it doesn't take $99,500 to implement some sort of blue tooth range extender. As for people not coming together if a draft was implemented again; I think that shows Americans displeasure with the current government.

I personally rather do 4 yeas in prison than sacrifice myself for the monetary welfare of those old white guys in Washington.

I wouldn't join if America did another Vietnam, but I have no problem joining if Pearl Harbor II happened.

I do probably agree with America implement some sort of military/government service, but that won't happen as America is still heavy in equal when it comes to its diverse society (race, gender, etc...). Pretty interesting black people helped the contiential army knowing they were slaves, and would probably remain slaves after the war.

#39 Edited by wis3boi (31115 posts) -

This is a prime way to fuck your own country

#40 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

Haha you really are one of those ignoramuses who blame the government for things that it doesn't really have much control over or exaggerates its flaws. Most of the problems you cited were caused by the recession, long-term demographic trends and some shoddy decisions by the previous administration. This is like saying that the U.S. government was dysfunctional in World War II because national debt soared to 110% of GDP (a higher ratio than today) and half a million Americans died, your statements are useless and meaningless because they completely ignore that very important thing called context.

All you need to do to determine if the U.S. government is functional is to see whether it's still capable of improving American living standards, defending the country, ensuring the political representation of the American people and maintaining the American national identity. By all these measures it is far more than functional - it outperforms most other states on the planet. Is the U.S. government politically hamstrung and less effective than it could be? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is very capable of performing all of its major roles. In a system like what the T.C. proposed it wouldn't be able to handle most of them due to shitty resource allocation.

I'll make it very simple for you.

Tell me what the government does well. Better yet, tell me what the government does better than the private sector. About the only thing I can think of is the military and that is even pushing it.

We are not involved in a World War. So your comments about debt to GDP ratio are meaningless. Our government spends too much money for all of the wrong reasons. Some of those reasons include being the world's police force, believing it should be in control of as much of our lives as possible, class warfare, etc..,

The government has much control over that which is fudged up but the sheep (you included) tend to believe the government is only responsible when, on the rare occasion, things go smoothly. The spending is all on the Congress. Interfering in the affairs of others (foreign and domestic) is all on the Congress and President. The piss poor business climate is attributed to the government with its over-regulations. taxes, etc.., Sheep like you don't want to hold this government responsible for what is rightfully deserving.

Above you clearly acknowledged the government put us in our current mess. Whether or not you know is a different story. BTW, according to the current administration the recession has been over for a few years now.

If our problems are not the fault of the politicians who run the country and make the laws, who gets the blame?

Fantastic goalpost shifting here. Look you illiterate dipshit, nobody in this thread ever claimed that the U.S. government does something better than the private sector (but if you want answers, public education, the military, police, infrastructure, social welfare, regulation etc). I said that it is functional now but would be dysfunctional if it was using the system in the OP. How you got a discussion of efficiency vs the private sector out of that I don't know, but I'm just going to chalk it up to you knowing that you're losing the argument on the basis of actual logic and therefore trying to invent some weird new meaning of "dysfunctional" to fit your personal beliefs.

And the U.S. may not have had a World War, but it's been fighting two wars for a far longer duration than either of the World Wars and recently went through a fucking recession. So a high level of debt is hardly unreasonable for a government when the alternative is going back into recession (or back in the 1940s, losing the war and going back into recession). And yes, while it ended over four years ago, the recovery has not been very strong and it's not like the effects of a massive financial crisis on your economy are going to just disappear over a four year period. At least there is a recovery mostly due to the actions of the U.S. government - if it were truly dysfunctional you would be stuck in another Great Depression right now.

You (and the majority of everybody) need to get out of your mindset of lumping all politicians and government officials into one group. While it may seem like a great idea for the intellectually simple like you to simply target "politicians" or "the government" for every ill that befalls you, the reality is that the people in power are individuals with distinct and differing motives, belief systems and skills. It's easy to accuse the "U.S. government" of causing the recession, but it's extremely misleading because the main official who was responsible was Alan Greenspan and he no longer has any power.

#41 Posted by playmynutz (5981 posts) -

@thegerg: That's getting into way too many details. I guess I would still have to pay my taxes to authority to enforce the tax laws

#42 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -
#43 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

A lot OF shit wouldn't be getting funded which would be bad. LIKE IT OR DON'T

NOW

There is TONS of shit that is completely waste and wrong...

#44 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg: That's getting into way too many details. I guess I would still have to pay my taxes to authority to enforce the tax laws

Don't forget about the postal service that delivers the necessary paperwork to and from you.

#45 Edited by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

Fantastic goalpost shifting here. Look you illiterate dipshit, nobody in this thread ever claimed that the U.S. government does something better than the private sector (but if you want answers, public education, the military, police, infrastructure, social welfare, regulation etc). I said that it is functional now but would be dysfunctional if it was using the system in the OP. How you got a discussion of efficiency vs the private sector out of that I don't know, but I'm just going to chalk it up to you knowing that you're losing the argument on the basis of actual logic and therefore trying to invent some weird new meaning of "dysfunctional" to fit your personal beliefs.

And the U.S. may not have had a World War, but it's been fighting two wars for a far longer duration than either of the World Wars and recently went through a fucking recession. So a high level of debt is hardly unreasonable for a government when the alternative is going back into recession (or back in the 1940s, losing the war and going back into recession). And yes, while it ended over four years ago, the recovery has not been very strong and it's not like the effects of a massive financial crisis on your economy are going to just disappear over a four year period. At least there is a recovery mostly due to the actions of the U.S. government - if it were truly dysfunctional you would be stuck in another Great Depression right now.

You (and the majority of everybody) need to get out of your mindset of lumping all politicians and government officials into one group. While it may seem like a great idea for the intellectually simple like you to simply target "politicians" or "the government" for every ill that befalls you, the reality is that the people in power are individuals with distinct and differing motives, belief systems and skills. It's easy to accuse the "U.S. government" of causing the recession, but it's extremely misleading because the main official who was responsible was Alan Greenspan and he no longer has any power.

You claimed the government is wrongly being blamed for things outside its control, did you not? The problems we are seeing are a direct result of the gross incompetence of our government. What it touches, it usually funks up. Hence, why I asked you to name what the government does better than the private sector. Infrastructure? Clearly you aren't aware the condition of our roads and bridges are terrible. They are falling apart. Education? I advise you to check where the United States ranks globally among nations in terms of education. Regulation? Sure if over-regulating is good.

The amount of people in the workforce hasn't been this low for decades. Over 40 million people receive food stamps. We have a grossly under-reported unemployment number. How did the stimulus work out for us? Can you recall how much money was spent for the minimal jobs created or saved? How about the money shelled into GM? We're still on the losing end with that one. Christ, should we even talk about how many green companies the government pushed that failed? Our politicians run the country and make the laws and decisions. How do they get a pass when their actions (or in some cases inactions) have gotten us in our condition?

Greenspan is only one spoke in the wheel. You can also thank Bush, Obama and the Congress under each of them. A few posts back you blamed Bush for putting us in the mess. Make up your mind, son. Who is it? Clearly you aren't up on American politics otherwise you'd know the line of bull fed to the people about how the war in Iraq would be paid for. Iraq was suppose to use its oil to pay for the war, reconstruction, etc.., We were also lied to when it came to the projected cost of the war. In other words, the government screwed the pooch yet again. The recession is thanks to many screw ups by the government going back well before Bush. Remember the Democrats pushing to make banks give mortgages to those who were high risk and unable to afford them? Who can forget when it all came crashing down. But that wasn't the fault of the government, right?

Is it difficult being a sheep to such a inept, corrupt entity or does it come naturally for you?

#46 Edited by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

Fantastic goalpost shifting here. Look you illiterate dipshit, nobody in this thread ever claimed that the U.S. government does something better than the private sector (but if you want answers, public education, the military, police, infrastructure, social welfare, regulation etc). I said that it is functional now but would be dysfunctional if it was using the system in the OP. How you got a discussion of efficiency vs the private sector out of that I don't know, but I'm just going to chalk it up to you knowing that you're losing the argument on the basis of actual logic and therefore trying to invent some weird new meaning of "dysfunctional" to fit your personal beliefs.

And the U.S. may not have had a World War, but it's been fighting two wars for a far longer duration than either of the World Wars and recently went through a fucking recession. So a high level of debt is hardly unreasonable for a government when the alternative is going back into recession (or back in the 1940s, losing the war and going back into recession). And yes, while it ended over four years ago, the recovery has not been very strong and it's not like the effects of a massive financial crisis on your economy are going to just disappear over a four year period. At least there is a recovery mostly due to the actions of the U.S. government - if it were truly dysfunctional you would be stuck in another Great Depression right now.

You (and the majority of everybody) need to get out of your mindset of lumping all politicians and government officials into one group. While it may seem like a great idea for the intellectually simple like you to simply target "politicians" or "the government" for every ill that befalls you, the reality is that the people in power are individuals with distinct and differing motives, belief systems and skills. It's easy to accuse the "U.S. government" of causing the recession, but it's extremely misleading because the main official who was responsible was Alan Greenspan and he no longer has any power.

You claimed the government is wrongly being blamed for things outside its control, did you not? The problems we are seeing are a direct result of the gross incompetence of our government. What it touches, it usually funks up. Hence, why I asked you to name what the government does better than the private sector. Infrastructure? Clearly you aren't aware the condition of our roads and bridges are terrible. They are falling apart. Education? I advise you to check where the United States ranks globally among nations in terms of education. Regulation? Sure if over-regulating is good.

The amount of people in the workforce hasn't been this low for decades. Over 40 million people receive food stamps. We have a grossly under-reported unemployment number. How did the stimulus work out for us? Can you recall how much money was spent for the minimal jobs created or saved? How about the money shelled into GM? We're still on the losing end with that one. Christ, should we even talk about how many green companies the government pushed that failed? Our politicians run the country and make the laws and decisions. How do they get a pass when their actions (or in some cases inactions) have gotten us in our condition?

Greenspan is only one spoke in the wheel. You can also thank Bush, Obama and the Congress under each of them. A few posts back you blamed Bush for putting us in the mess. Make up your mind, son. Who is it? Clearly you aren't up on American politics otherwise you'd know the line of bull fed to the people about how the war in Iraq would be paid for. Iraq was suppose to use its oil to pay for the war, reconstruction, etc.., We were also lied to when it came to the projected cost of the war. In other words, the government screwed the pooch yet again. The recession is thanks to many screw ups by the government going back well before Bush. Remember the Democrats pushing to make banks give mortgages to those who were high risk and unable to afford them? Who can forget when it all came crashing down. But that wasn't the fault of the government, right?

Is it difficult being a sheep to such a inept, corrupt entity or does it come naturally for you?

You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Hint: I never mentioned Bush once, so thanks for bringing him up and making it blatantly obvious that you're not actually bothering to read my posts and are just making shit up. It's become clear here and in previous threads that trying to educate you on anything is a massive waste of time.

#47 Edited by gamerguru100 (10502 posts) -

It would be an unmitigated disaster and severely fuck up your government and country.

*implying country and government aren't already fucked up*

#48 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24964 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

It would be an unmitigated disaster and severely fuck up your government and country.

*implying country and government aren't already fucked up*

It'd be like Last of Us but without the brain mushrooms.

So basically the good part of Detroit.

#49 Posted by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Hint: I never mentioned Bush once, so thanks for bringing him up and making it blatantly obvious that you're not actually bothering to read my posts and are just making shit up. It's become clear here and in previous threads that trying to educate you on anything is a massive waste of time.

Check out post #34 you gutless wonder. Notice you said the "previous administration?" Checkmate.

#50 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Hint: I never mentioned Bush once, so thanks for bringing him up and making it blatantly obvious that you're not actually bothering to read my posts and are just making shit up. It's become clear here and in previous threads that trying to educate you on anything is a massive waste of time.

Check out post #34 you gutless wonder. Notice you said the "previous administration?" Checkmate.

Context again motherfucker. If your IQ was at least in the double digits, you should be able to understand this considering how much time I've spent hammering into your atom sized brain that individuals in the government =/= the entire government. So let me clarify this just in case you're still confused by the moderately long words: Bush didn't do much to the economy other than add some trillions to your national debt, Alan Greenspan and population aging are responsible for the recession and shrinking workforce respectively. So I don't see how you can claim that the U.S. government is "dysfunctional" due to something that the government can't control, and a dude who hasn't been in the government for seven years.