Hi Kinsley,
In your defense, the taxation in the United states used to be progressive, now it is not. That means that those with the least disposable income pay for the infrastructure of the wealthy. How many lower middle class and poor use aircraft on a daily or weekly basis to get around? Yet they pay for airport construction, maintenence, and airline regulation so rich corporate business folk can travel with speed and comfort. Or at least they once traveled with speed before airport security became a necessity. But those lower middle class and poor folk are paying for that security as well as many other things.
Tom Irwin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:27:33 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
Robert,
Thank you for the reminders - I forgot a few things....
----- Original Message -----
From: "robert luis rabello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You live in a country where you have the ABILITY to earn your money,
> and you question the legitimacy of the government in taxing your income?
> You live in a country with an elaborate infrastructure undreamed of by the
> Constitutional framers, and you have a problem with supporting that
> infrastructure?
It is true that many of the Constitutional framers never intended the
federal government to become the beaurocratic behemoth that is is today.
They would have probably have revolted by now if they were alive today. I
think we have career politicians to thank for our unsupportable
infrastructure.
>
>> Now, there are legitimate things that each of these levels of government
>> can spend taxpayer dollars on, namely, those outlined in their
>> constitution or charter.
>
> We do not live in the same nation that existed in 1789 when the
> Constitution was ratified.
Which is why the Constitution is a living document, and there are currently
27 amendments to the Constitution. Perhaps we need a few more to bring it
up to today's standards. But the President and Congress have already
demonstrated that they can expand federal powers without the need for a
Constitutional Amendment, so why bother trying. And the citizens won't
notice the difference.
>
>> In the case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not
>> necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services, etc.
>> When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments) start
>> spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is no longer
>> legit.
>
> Not so, else that kind of activity would have been deemed
> unconstitutional long ago. Yours is a tired argument from the 1930s.
How do you explain Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Is it in the
Constitution? Then why does the FY2006 budget include over $1 trillion in
expenditures for these programs?
>
>> I would like to see Congress try and pass an Amendment to allow giving
>> loans to foreign nations and never expecting repayment of those loans.
>> How much support do you think they would get from the populace?
>
> What on earth are you talking about? If you're so concerned with
> fiscal restraint, why not encourage the Federal Government to pass a
> balanced budget amendment? Deficit spending is a serious problem, of
> which foreign aid is a vanishingly small percentage.
Bravo - I think that a balance budget amendment would be a great addition to
our Constitution! Then perhaps the Federal Government wouldn't be allowed
to increase our public debt by $390 billion next year (not including
interest on the debt).
You do make a good point about direct foreign aid - it only amounts to $950
million, or 0.037% of the total federal budget. I stand corrected. But
private contributions have had a significant impact on international aid
when the need arises - US-based relief groups and non-governmental
organizations raised over $1.031 billion towards the Asian Tsunami Disaster
Relief last year.
>
>> Governments, such as our federal government, do not own the money they
>> give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers (and bond holders)
>> who provide the money.
>
> If you look on a dollar bill, you will find a statement that reads:
> "Federal Reserve Note". Read Section 8 of Article 1 for further
> enlightenment on this issue.
I apologize for mispeaking. I meant that the federal government does not
add value to the gross domestic product (GDP). It is the citizenry (and
non-citizen residents) who add value to the GDP. Money is something created
by the federal government (constitutionally, of course) to measure the GDP
and each citizen's contribution to the GDP. And by measuring this, they
have the ability to tax it.
> The percentage of spending that goes to aid nations in the Third World
> is tiny, compared to overall government spending, and while much of that
> spending goes right back into American corporations, the largest dollar
> amounts "invested" overseas occurs in the form of military assistance.
> Israel, by the way, is the biggest recipient of American foreign aid. We
> have discussed this issue to death previously. A search of the archives
> is in order.
>
Hence the "something in return" mentioned below... I completely forgot
about the fact that much of the government-based aid spent overseas comes
right back to U.S. Corporations. Thank you for adding strength to my point
below.
>> As I mentioned previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my
>> hard earned money and "donating" away, perhaps I would have more money
>> that I could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is
>> only one example, there are others) as charity.
>
> The amount of money that you and I could donate for foreign aid would
> do very little to help. Only governments have the financial wherewithal
> to make a difference. We Americans like to think we're generous, but an
> examination of the facts shows a very different picture.
Compared to other nations, Americans do tend to be rather tight when it
comes to giving money to others. We gave 0.018% of our GDP to the Tsunami
relief, No. 20 out of 30 nations listed on
Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake).
>
>> Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most
>> politicians. Inside the "Beltway," a politician's power is measured by
>> his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some "generous"
>> sole to support some "Cause of the day." Have you ever met a political
>> donor that didn't expect something in return? The President and Congress
>> are just as guilty of wanting something in return for helping other
>> nations. How much money have they pumped into the poorer nations of the
>> Iraq War Coalition?
>
> Likely a lot less than we've spent in Iraq ourselves.
I didn't spend anything in Iraq. But our President has spent billions and
billions in Iraq. How much of that benefitted U.S. Corporations and
"special interest groups"?
>
>
>> Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will thrive
>> in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under it.
>
> Then don't use the socialist electrical grid, power plants, highway
> system and telecommunications infrastructure that Americans have
> collectively paid for over the years. I suspect you will also not want to
> participate in any of the corporate welfare that has gone on either.
> Health care? Don't bother going to a county hospital, or the local
> library. Oh yes, and police and fire suppression should also be high on
> your list of socialist government services you can do without. Even if you
> didn't learn how to read and write in a (horrors!) PUBLIC school, many of
> the rest of us did. That literacy you've developed wouldn't do you a
> whole lot of good were it not for the ability of the rest of us to
> comprehend the grapheme / phoneme relationships that appear on our
> collective (gasp!) computer screens. By the way, the internet itself had
> some initial government funding, did it not? Rid yourself of all these
> socialist trappings before you come here and whine about the pathetic
> contribution our government makes to improving life for the poor people of
> this world.
I would have preferred that the Federal Government stay out of all those
things. All of the things you mentioned should either be privately
sponsored (like the electrical grid, telecommunications infrastructure and
health care) or maintained strictly at the state (highways) or local
(schools, libraries, police, fire and emergency services). I had not
thought of them as socialist trappings, but if they are, then I guess there
is a place for them. Huh.
>
>
>> The same goes for the United Nations.
>
> Remember the League of Nations? That institution failed because we
> didn't want to participate in it. Like it or not, we are part of the
> larger world in which we live, and WE need to learn how to get along.
We should be a part of the world community, and the UN can be an important
part of that. But just as the U.S. should play nicely in the UN and with
the rest of the world, the UN should know its own limitations.
> Sometimes my fellow citizens disgust me!
Thank you. :o)
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
