A Question For The Liberals Here

Well Son, good morning. I see you are still at it. Did you get a chance to read my first reply to you?

That first reply of mine was written before there were any replies written and now I see the thread is doing well, except that your original question about whether or not liberals ( I see you are no longer capitalizing liberal, though the invective is still there) want to pay extra taxes is not working so well. It is you know a very stilted question, kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing.

Reading through the thread I find you have it in for NPR. and the money it costs the taxpayer. So I googled NPR government funding and the first piece I found was this.

SavetheNews.org, April 4, 2011
By Josh Stearns

According to a new survey, Americans think the federal government spends 5 percent of its total budget on public broadcasting. In reality, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives roughly one one-hundredth of one percent of our nation's budget. Perhaps the most astounding result of the survey was that even though the majority of people radically overestimate the budget for NPR and PBS, they still support that funding and many want to see it increased.

0.01% is this the problem? Now I will google PBS. Wait a minute.

Oops my mistake. That one one hundredth of one percent was for both NPR and PBS together.

So seeings how most of their money comes from their listeners I don't see much of a problem here. Not enough to get so riled about. Maybe it is that plethora of other entitlement programs that you are carrying on about. What are some of them and maybe we can google them and see what they are costing tax payers.

Now I've got to go feed the dog and get about some chores. See ya later and maybe well do some more googling.

I am opposed to government funding even 1 penny to NPR, PBS and other such groups. I am equally opposed to the national endowment for the arts and related expenditures. By the way, how much is .01% of a trillion dollars? That is still 100 million dollars that could be left in the hands of taxpayers. I know it is "only" a hundred million dollars but surely a more important use could be found?

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

Thanks for replying twice. I actually did read your first post, and just read it again to see if I missed something. The entire post seemed rhetorical in nature with no reply desired or necessary. Did I miss something?

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


I left everything I had to give back to the federal government over in Bosnia and East Africa. thanks though.

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

I left everything I had to give back to the federal government over in Bosnia and East Africa. thanks though.

I understand. I toured Bosnia and Iraq. I would not wish that on anyone. If it were up to me, every soldier would return home starting now.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


and while I don't agree with your stance, I can at least see and understand your point of view on why you don't think some of these programs should be funded. My point was that by cutting out a larger portion of the defense budget we can still save money in addition to keeping some of these programs intact.To give you a more straight and direct answer, with what I get in disability from the army, there's not a lot left to put in my kids college funds let alone donate money back. I find other ways to do so by donating time and services to local community based initiatives. I'm also well aware that if even a small percentage of people did so then we could alleviate the need for federal intervention or contributions. Unfortunately in this country complacency is commonplace and I don't see it happening anytime soon.

reply to post by peter vlar

I'm also well aware that if even a small percentage of people did so then we could alleviate the need for federal intervention or contributions. Unfortunately in this country complacency is commonplace and I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Thus the birth of the nanny state. Complacency should not be a reason to compel others to make up their lack.

I regret your injuries and thank you for your service. One thing to note is that I would never advocate revocation of disability for injured soldiers. I even believe we need to offer more support to the mentally traumatized resulting from these wars. I came home physically whole, though I do have some problems. They pale in comparison to yours though, I am sure.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Garfee

 

In this context, a "liberal" is one who believes that we "need" NPR, PBS, and the plethora of entitlement programs that currently pervade our society.

I'll take NPR and PBS over FoxNews any day

That said, I'm a progressive republican, or a libertarian, or something. I'm for abortion, gay marriage and marijuana. And I want my government as small as possible. Keep taxes for things we NEED and stay the hell out of my business. If it's not hurting anyone else, legalize it.

Originally posted by Hawking


I'll take NPR and PBS over FoxNews any day

Thanks for replying. That is certainly your right to believe. However, should the government fund them?

That said, I'm a progressive republican, or a libertarian, or something. I'm for abortion, gay marriage and marijuana. And I want my government as small as possible. Keep taxes for things we NEED and stay the hell out of my business. If it's not hurting anyone else, legalize it.

Definitely sound more Libertarian than Repuklican. Abortion is one of two areas where I disagree with the platform. However, no matter what, the government should not be funding abortion.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

reply to post by tothetenthpower
Perhaps instead of increasing revenue, we could cut spending?

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


There is no real way to do that, you have to raise taxes AND cut spending in order to get the budget under control. You can't just cut.

That would be like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

There is no real way to do that, you have to raise taxes AND cut spending in order to get the budget under control. You can't just cut.

That would be like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

That is not true. The government has plenty of revenue. They just spend way too much. Of course some of the cuts will piss off some people, but tough choices must be made.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Realy?! npr and pbs are entitlement programs? They are public information organizations. This thread is covered with ignorance and hate, and shows that people really will believe whatever glenn hannity limbaugh says. Why shouldn't the rich pay more in taxes, since they have the ability to do so? Since the majority of americans live paycheck to paycheck, and their cost of living is constantly increasing, it would be grossly unfair to make them pay more than the well-off people who can afford it. I'm praying for intelligence, but i fear i shall find none.

reply to post by CyberFawkes1105

Excuse me, did you even read my original post? Nowhere did I claim those programs where entitlement programs. Please read the OP, then I will be happy to discuss. Thank you.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


sorry to play devils advocate here but... no, not in the OP but you did refer to them as entitlement programs here-

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Hoping4Wisdom
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

No no no thank you for the reply to my reply.

So you believe we "need" those entitlement programs, but you will not help fund them? Is that your statement? Or do I misunderstand?

edit on 4-4-2011 by sonofliberty1776 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

sorry to play devils advocate here but... no, not in the OP but you did refer to them as entitlement programs here-

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Hoping4Wisdom
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

No no no thank you for the reply to my reply.

So you believe we "need" those entitlement programs, but you will not help fund them? Is that your statement? Or do I misunderstand?

edit on 4-4-2011 by sonofliberty1776 because: (no reason given)

LOL, ok I guess it did all get lumped together there. However I was quite clear in my OP that they were separate. I guess I should have taken an extra minute or so to add those in separately again.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

In this context, a "liberal" is one who believes that we "need" NPR, PBS, and the plethora of entitlement programs that currently pervade our society.

sorry, but i believe you did. If I misunderstood you then i apologize, but that's how it is written.

Originally posted by CyberFawkes1105
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

In this context, a "liberal" is one who believes that we "need" NPR, PBS, and the plethora of entitlement programs that currently pervade our society.

sorry, but i believe you did. If I misunderstood you then i apologize, but that's how it is written.

Nope there they are absolutely separated out. Please do not take offense, but is English your first language? I am only asking to determine if that is why you might have trouble understanding that NPR, PBS and the Entitlement programs are three separate entities in that sentence. All of the nanny state programs are lumped together under "entitlement programs", but it should be perfectly clear that NPR and PBS are separate. Sorry for the confusion.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Yes English is my first language. I understand that they were separated, but only as part of the same list. I have no desire to continue on the subject, as derailing your thread is not my intent.

The point remains that wealthy americans have the ability to provide more tax dollars, more comfortably than less fortunate americans. Is this not true? In times of economic hardship does it make sense to tax those most affected by said hardship, or those least affected? An answer to these points would be much appreciated.