Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
The wealthy tend to have money invested, which involves the SEC and the Fed Reserve. They travel more which involves highways and airports paid for with tax money. The wealthy benefit far more from police protection and the justice system.
I can't say that I agree with your assessments... particularly with regard to police protection and the justice system. The wealthy might travel more by air, but I doubt they travel by car as much... especially in proportion to the general population. With regard to the SEC and Federal Reserve, I'll just say that I don't know.
I would say that the wealthy are far more in need of an established police department and justice system than the lower classes, since the wealthy have more to lose and more to protect. The lower classes don't typically get that level of protection and commonly view the police as adversaries in their neighborhood (which is how gangs get formed). DomKen also made a valid point about the rule of law and how the wealthy are far more dependent upon that than their own sense of "self-reliance." We can see how "self-reliant" business owners become when their workers go on strike.
As far as road and highway usage, the wealthy also benefit from the amount of commercial traffic on the public roads. Likewise, someone who can afford a big luxury RV (and the gas to keep it running) is clearly going to be using the public roads a heck of a lot more than some working stiff who can barely keep his car running just to get to work.
Regarding the SEC or the Federal Reserve, I'm not sure if their original purpose was to benefit the rich, although my sense is that wealthy investors and bankers undoubtedly have more dealings with those agencies than the average working stiff with a checking account. It's just like with the EPA. The average citizen doesn't have to deal with the EPA, but wealthy industrial polluters do.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll deal with this and your list of research, you got it off some right wing site right?, in one go.
No. They came from a couple of different sources... Most from just a run-of-the-mill list site (best places to live, funniest memes, most dangerous dog breeds, etc.) and the other a financial and investing site. I've no idea if the financial site itself is "right-wing", but the article pulled some items from a book written by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), "Wastebook 2011".
It sounds similar to the Golden Fleece Award that the late Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) used to announce on a yearly basis. I tend to agree that this kind of waste should be done away with, although I think that's a separate issue from the philosophical/ideological debate that's going on regarding the spending of public money. I don't really quibble over what our government spends our money on as much as I would complain about how they actually do it.
quote:
I'm sorry, but no... they aren't important enough. That's not to say they have no validity or are worthless; just that they are frivolous compared to some of the life-saving or life-sustaining programs where the money could go.
So... if you're coming to me saying you need more money because children are starving and ill people are dying, I'm going to say cut out the frivolous crap first and then we'll talk.
I'm not sure if it's the frivolous stuff that's the main problem here - or if it's simple mismanagement of the "legitimate" stuff. In any government agency or project, how much money goes to paying the administrative and executive level personnel?
To give a local example, there's always the usual bickering over the school budget, how much the district needs, how much the taxpayers should pay, and what the district actually does with the money they're already getting. On one occasion, the school board announced that it would be cutting funding to all the school bands, since it was viewed as something elective and "frivolous." There was a big outcry over that, and even some local businesses offered to donate money so that schools could keep their school bands. But they never really make any real cuts at the top administrative levels, which is what gets many people upset.
Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be public education, but when you hear of top-level education executives making six-figure salaries while teachers (who make considerably less) have to pay out of pocket just to buy papers and pencils for their students, something seems seriously wrong about that.
Perhaps one way to solve the problem would be to layoff, fire, or cut the salaries/benefits of every individual earning more than $100,000 per year if their source of income is primarily from the taxpayers. This would not just apply to government employees, but also anyone who works for a government contractor which earns more than 50% of its revenue from government business. The savings could be enormous.
|
RE: United States Debt... or the Elephant in the Room - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread