A question for Republicans that I've had for a long time

[Pooty22]

Yes, it would be so bad, because ultimately, every dollar of money spent by the federal government was taken from the people of this country for the benefit of a select few. Wealth redistribution by force is slavery. Can you honestly get behind that?

Isn't money spent on the military also money that was forcibly taken? How is spending it on the military different than spending it on people in need?

 

[Pooty22]

SORRY GUYS I LITERALLY CANNOT RESPOND FAST ENOUGH. PLUS, I HAVE TO GO TO WORK AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO REPLY ON MY PHONE.

THIS HAS BEEN A FUN DISCUSSION WITH MOST OF YOU. THE OTHERS, WELL, YOU GUYS ARE AS PREDICTABLE AS ALWAYS.

 

[Tranquil]

I'm a republican and I don't support spending trillions on wars. I encourage it! Do you know what the surplus stores are going to look like in five years!?

 

[beararms1776]

The welfare system isn't designed to stay on by those that can work. Granted, people do need assistance from time to time to get on their feet via their very own tax dollars. Only a person who's been there, will understand this. The system wasn't designed to be a socialist program but through the process of evolution, kinda appears to be going in that direction.

 

[Que]

I strongly disagree with this statement. I know several people who got married while they were in the military just so they could get the BAH and family separation pay. They would make an agreement with a female friend from back home to get married for as long as they were in the military, then divorce when they got out.

How many did you report? How many are we talking about? I would wager there are less people doing that compared to those cheating the welfare system.

 

[88GT]

Who, right now, poses a threat large enough to warrant a military as large as ours? This year, the US will spend as much money on the military as the next ELEVEN highest spending countries in the world. To extend on my first question, who in the next five years could pose a big enough threat that we wouldn't see coming that warrants a military the size of ours?

Right now isn't the problem. It's also a plausible argument that the current size of our military is sufficient deterrent. Reduce it and then what? THAT was my point.

And again, we come back to the point (that you ignored) spending is not necessarily correlated to size.

Isn't money spent on the military also money that was forcibly taken? How is spending it on the military different than spending it on people in need?

Yep. But it is Constitutional, and it doesn't benefit a select few (it is a true public good), and it doesn't redistribute wealth. Social welfare = charity. Charity is not a power granted to the government by the Constitution.

 

[beararms1776]

High taxes, their burdens and overspending are your huckleberry. Release one and choke the other and whala, it's job creation plus revenue.

 

[jamil]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

I don't consider myself Republican although I probably have more in common with conservative Republicans than politicians you're likely to vote for.

I am not willing to spend trillions on war unless that war is necessary and the cost in lives and dollars is justifiable. The Afghanistan government was involved in 9/11, what they did was an act of war. I can't say that the war we waged was effectively managed, though. The war in Iraq was not necessary nor was it justified. I voted in 2004 to fire GWB for that.

In general national defense is a constitutional duty for the government. But I don't think we need to be 200 times more powerful than 2nd place. 100 times will do. But I agree with the rest that we should stop trying to be the world's police force.

Social programs? No. Not the government's job. You've been asked more than once, essentially to explain what authority the government has to redistribute wealth. You've only answered that it's your honest opinion that "it's a country's responsibility to take care of the welfare of its citizens." And in saying that, I can't help but get the feeling that you feel this opinion puts you on a higher moral plane than those of us who disagree with you. It's essentially the cause for this thread.

But this is what makes that sentiment morally reprehensible. You have no right and no moral authority to tell other individuals that they must give up a portion of their resources to give to another.

I agree but at what point is the spending considered excessive for Republicans?

Spending more than we take in for ANYTHING is excessive. Taxing individuals more than 10% of their resources is excessive. Creating a dependent class of people who can live without having to contribute any of their resources to the functioning of the government for its intended purpose is morally depraved.

Weren't we in a surplus when Clinton left office?

There was a period of about 3 years at the end of the Clinton administration that we took in more revenue than we spent. It wasn't that Clinton was particularly frugal. It was more that he was lucky to have been POTUS during the tech boom. A LOT of money was being made, which meant a lot of revenues for the G. I'm not sure even Carter could have screwed that up.

When the tech boom ended, so did the surplus. Of course GWB lowering taxes without a commensurate reduction in spending made that much worse.

Honest opinion, it is a country's responsibility to take care of the welfare of it's citizens. With that said however, unless you employ a VAST number of people to monitor, trace, and enforce the rules involving eligibility to remain on the social programs, you are never going to be able to make sure that only people that actually need the help are receiving benefits. This doesn't mean that the social programs shouldn't exist. They truly help MOST of those people that need it. There are always going to be abuses, but when it all comes down to it, you, as a taxpayer, don't get to dictate how the money is spent.

Social programs shouldn't exist in the form they are now. And certainly, the government shouldn't actively seek out people to make dependents of them as they are now. The only social programs I would agree with would be programs to help people help themselves. Beyond that, social programs mostly make people permanent dependents of the government. Which is kinda handy for democrats because those dependents will perpetually vote for politicians who promise to continue the gravy train.

As I said earlier, I think the money that has been spent on these wars or extra money in the future that would come from a smaller military should go to things like education, tuition assistance, infrastructure improvements, medical research, environmental research, NASA, Social Security, and Medicare. I would like to add that most of these things would result in more jobs.

Education is not a government function.

Public infrastructure is a government function.

Medical research is not a government function, the private market should fund that.

Environmental research is not a government function, if there's a market for it, someone will fund it. If it's unimportant enough for market forces to fund it, go ahead, create a non profit and see if you can convince people to donate. Otherwise, it's not that important.

Space exploration is not a government function. If there's a genuine need to explore space, someone will fund that need.

Social Security and Medicare are not government functions.

Pooty, if we entirely rid ourselves of the military, got rid of all the tanks, planes, missiles, etc, the debt would still grow.
In the 70s, the military was the biggest part of the federal budget.
That is not even close to being true anymore.

I think interest payments on the national debt may have overtaken the place of Military Spending in the Pareto of expense categories. At some point in the trajectory the cost of debt will eclipse everything else.

What interest does private enterprise have in any of those things? Who's going to pay private insurance to repair roads and bridges on public highways and interstates? Unless you want to pay for it every time you drive it.

Private enterprise does have a hand in education and tuition assistance, however the publicly funded alternatives are usually cheaper.

There are a couple companies getting into space exploration, but that is far from the only thing NASA does.

Oh and private companies that spend their own money doing research are the reason everything in the medical field is extremely, sometimes prohibitively, expensive.

Private enterprise has an interest in ALL those things. We do have some private roads and bridges. However I don't think wide scale privatization of ownership in public infrastructure is very practical. I'm okay with my tax dollars funding that as long as we stop building infrastructure for the sake of employing people.

That you think publicly funded education alternatives are cheaper than private is laughable. Public education cost per student is higher than most other countries, yet we suck at it. Private schools are much cheaper and generally perform much better.

As for medical research, if there's not enough incentive to privately fund specific research, and it's still worth doing, I advocate giving generously to nonprofit orgs to fund your pet projects.

 

[cobber]

SORRY GUYS I LITERALLY CANNOT RESPOND FAST ENOUGH. PLUS, I HAVE TO GO TO WORK AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO REPLY ON MY PHONE.

THIS HAS BEEN A FUN DISCUSSION WITH MOST OF YOU. THE OTHERS, WELL, YOU GUYS ARE AS PREDICTABLE AS ALWAYS.

You want to steal our money, shrink our military, and fold the 'savings' into social programs that are not a legitimate function of the federal government.

Not much to discuss there. You propose unjustifiable actions. Excuse the rest of us for not being thrilled as all get-out.

 

[Que]

SORRY GUYS I LITERALLY CANNOT RESPOND FAST ENOUGH. PLUS, I HAVE TO GO TO WORK AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO REPLY ON MY PHONE.

THIS HAS BEEN A FUN DISCUSSION WITH MOST OF YOU. THE OTHERS, WELL, YOU GUYS ARE AS PREDICTABLE AS ALWAYS.

Have a good night at work. You don't work for the government do you?

 

[churchmouse]

Wow that's clever.

Yes it is......

 

[churchmouse]

You think the Dems could live with a cash surplus? I'd love to see that but history shows me it won't happen. I have taken notice for years on this. Every time I cashed my paycheck and all the money came out that the Govt didn't deserve. I'm retired now and they'll NOT get another dime of my paychecks to waste.

Right.............

 

[Bunnykid68]

Have a good night at work. You don't work for the government do you?

Good question, who is his employer?

 

[halfmileharry]

Good question, who is his employer?

I'm just glad he's actually employed

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Have a good night at work. You don't work for the government do you?

I doubt it. Not to many .gov's open on Sunday nights, are there?

 

[jamil]

Isn't money spent on the military also money that was forcibly taken? How is spending it on the military different than spending it on people in need?

I have an idea. Rather than the government forcibly taking our money, I think we should make them beg us for it.

Make a fairly low minimum tax rate, same for everyone, regardless of income, to fund a minimal government. No deductions. Every year, the only tax form you have to fill out is to designate what rate you want to pay for the year above the minimum rate, and what you want your tax contributions to be spent on. You want social programs? Knock yourself out. Go all in baby. It's your money.

I'd bet that we'd get only the government we need, and not very much at all of the government we have. This is because people talk a really good "social justice" game until they have to choose to fund it from their own resources.

 

[beararms1776]

Originally Posted by Pooty22
SORRY GUYS I LITERALLY CANNOT RESPOND FAST ENOUGH. PLUS, I HAVE TO GO TO WORK AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO REPLY ON MY PHONE.

THIS HAS BEEN A FUN DISCUSSION WITH MOST OF YOU. THE OTHERS, WELL, YOU GUYS ARE AS PREDICTABLE AS ALWAYS.

Have a good night at work. You don't work for the government do you?

Czar maybe?

 

[Que]

I doubt it. Not to many .gov's open on Sunday nights, are there?

The .gov never closes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I have an idea. Rather than the government forcibly taking our money, I think we should make them beg us for it.

Make a fairly low minimum tax rate, same for everyone, regardless of income, to fund a minimal government. No deductions. Every year, the only tax form you have to fill out is to designate what rate you want to pay for the year above the minimum rate, and what you want your tax contributions to be spent on. You want social programs? Knock yourself out. Go all in baby. It's your money.

I'd bet that we'd get only the government we need, and not very much at all of the government we have. This is because people talk a really good "social justice" game until they have to choose to fund it from their own resources.

On top of that...eliminate tax withholding. Everybody has to pay their taxes out of their gross, every month, just like their cable or cell phone bills. I contend this will make the taxes you have to pay very personal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The .gov never closes.

Well...there was that one time, a few weeks ago.