You do have an interesting argument, namely that Republicans in congress will fight a Democrat President's spending proposals but feel forced to go along with a big spending Republican like Bush. Bush was a big disappointment to me pre-9/11 and even after he has disappointed. I don't see why the first response to 9/11 had to be to hire a million union members as "screeners" and create the largest department ever. Now they say Homeland Security is poorly organized. Go figure. I give Bush high marks for judicial appointments, lower marks for actually fighting to get them confirmed. A President is not without weapons if he chooses to use them. Bush for some reason thought he could charm and get along with hard left idealogues like Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy and Clinton. Bush has also been handicapped by extremely timid Senate leadership. Trent Lott was regularly outsmarted by Daschle. Bill Frist is an outstanding man, maybe a good VP choice but clearly not up to battling the Democrat obstructionism in the Senate. Still, there are worse things than high spending. Having some leftwing Democrat President appoint thousands of agency heads and staffers and make judicial picks that we know the Republicans will be too timid to oppose is high on the list.
I'm warning you bung. This is how it starts. You begin to realize that you don't agree with the guys you vote for on important issues. Then you realize the other guys are actually making sense. You begin to discount some of the fringe issues that you used to find offensive. One day you wake up, look over at your trophy wife, look out the window of your expensive house at your sports car and SUV, try to decide if you'll play golf or go out on your yacht and it hits you: Damn, I'm a Republican!@!!!
I'd just amend that to say that defense isn't the ONLY problem. If you break down the budgets of the past few years, and look at funding for only education (by that I mean elementary, middle, high school, and college) vs. national defense you'll get the 15X number. And AAA is correct... I wasn't factoring in state expenditures as well, I was writing on the federal expenditures only. I can understand that many people think that education should be a local priority, but I think that there should be some national standards that we adhere to as well. And the schools shouldn't be as locally funded as they are currently. Property taxes should be pooled and then the local districts can choose where to send the money. As for parental involvement, it doesn't exist anymore because people are too busy working, which I think goes back to the original point of overall expenditures, cost of living, etc. So, if we could just get rid of a lot of the taxes we pay, maybe more parents would be involved. www.nationalpriorities.org
The error comes when we think that education only happens in the school systems. Most education systems serve as a simple daycare 80% of the time so that the parents can stay at work. If we'd just ease the tax burden and let people keep more of their money then there would be more parents spending time with their kids and educating them on their own time. Much of the education spending is simply an effort to keep pace with the modern family dynamic and make up for the problems that come with overtaxing.
And you call yourself a Democrat. Hmph! Personally, I think estate taxes a BRILLIANT idea! What benefit is there in allowing family financial empires? Why shouldn't everyone have to work their way up in society, rather than have everything handed to them on a silver platter? If it was up to me, far from getting rid of them, I would be raising estate taxes -- for the "rich", multi-multi millions -- up to the hilt. Kevin Phillips does a great job of outlining the ways in which democracy is subverted by $$ in his book, "Wealth and Democracy" (he's a Republican, too). Very good read (although he's not a very good writer). The US already has the poorest Gini co-efficient in the developed world, financial empires only serve to deepen the divide.
If only the estate tax applied only to "estates". People who are merely upper class shouldn't be as affected.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that after I work my ass off my entire life so my kids and my grand kids can have a good life you want the gov't come in and take that away from me. Are you serious? Your not serious right? I hope you were being sarcastic because if your not that is scary. There is a difference between a billionaire dying and leaving a billion in cash to his kids. First of all this does not happen. Most of the super rich create foundations and trusts. These trusts are very limited in terms of the access your children have to them. Many of these simply allow for your children to get only a small piece of it over time and they also allow them to pay for their education and get healthcare from it. But if you think I am going to work my ass off so when I die and give all this money to the gov't who will then redistribute that money to special interest groups and whoever else I may completely object to. Wow, that is scary. I cannot believe there are people in this country that think that way.
He is NOT being sarcastic Marverick. This is why I take all these swipes at him. People like Alfonso DO exist and are the enemy to any rational system of government. He is a die hard socialist, or better yet, as Rearden put it, "communist light". The reason people should be able to work their asses off to make life easier for their children all comes down to individual rights, namely property rights. If I TRULY have a right to my property, then I also have a RIGHT to CHOOSE who I give it to when I die. A huge estate state is robbing me of that right. Something Alfonso, apparently does not have an issue with. It's OK to rob people of their most basic rights as long as it prevents these "evil family empires". LOL. What a crock. The real question is.... WHY THE HELL DO THESE OTHER PEOPLE DESERVE THE MONEY I WORKED SO HARD FOR INSTEAD OF MY OWN KIDS?!?!?! Any way you cut it, it does not make any sense and is not a defendable position. That born rich guilt must run really deep in Alfonso Shaking my head...... peace axeman
Well, it depends on what you mean by "good life". If you are going to be leaving them $5MM each, then yes, I would want to take it away. If you're leaving them $500k each, then no, they can have it. Don't get too hung up on the levels I've used (5MM and 500k), but that's the basic principle I advocate. Could you please tell me mr maverick, just what it is that scares you so much about this? I would really be interested to know. Yes, the implementation of such a plan would not be straightforward in the least. We can certainly expect the rich to kick and squirm and try every trick in the book to evade it. Trusts are a particularly insidious tool. I think we'd really have to look hard into the whole concept of trusts and question what right a person has to control the fate of assets after his death. Well, you can relax -- I'm not in your country. (Don't relax too much though, there are many others that are!)
He is NOT being sarcastic Marverick. This is why I take all these swipes at him. Swipe all you like! You know what I hear when I read "swipes"? I hear frustration that one's own ideas about what is "right" and "good" and "proper", even "rational", are being challenged -- that 'Oh my God, you mean my point of view isn't the only one!? Great gadzooks!'. People like Alfonso DO exist and are the enemy to any rational system of government. That is simply BS axeman, and I think you know it. If you disagree, then please prove to me how your preferred system of government is any more "rational"? (Or better yet, try proving to me the propositions of objectivism. That should be good. There's a reason why no academic philosopher takes Rand seriously.) How the hell can you even define what is rational government until you define what the purpose of government is? And in that case, why should I simply accept, axiomatically, your point of view on what the purpose of government is? He is a die hard socialist, or better yet, as Rearden put it, "communist light". Well, I've harbored suspicions before that you really don't understand what I'm on about, otherwise you'd never make such a ridiculous comment. (Unless, in true Randian style, you've invented your own definition of "socialist".) Lol, would a "hardline" socialist be pro-business? And pro-capitalism (not to the extreme, but generally yes)? Yet those are precisely what I have stated in previous posts of mine. Just because I think high (very high) estate taxes, on the very rich, would be beneficial to society (and, in the long run, to the heirs of these rich) you cannot go from that to calling me "hardline" socialist. Not with a straight face you can't. The reason people should be able to work their asses off to make life easier for their children all comes down to individual rights, namely property rights. If I TRULY have a right to my property, then I also have a RIGHT to CHOOSE who I give it to when I die. Well, tell me then, do you "TRULY" have a right to your property? Can you prove this? Or is another axiom I'm supposed to simply accept "cos I said so"? Now, before you all rip my head off, I'm in agreement that ironclad property rights are a fundamental aspect of any successful capitalistic (even socialistic) society. But why should we extend them to you after you are dead? If we can make certain alterations to the basic principle of personal property, in order to create a better society, why shouldn't we do it? Something Alfonso, apparently does not have an issue with. It's OK to rob people of their most basic rights as long as it prevents these "evil family empires". LOL. What a crock. Basically, yes. I am in favor of a more egalitarian society. Gee, what a crock. The real question is.... WHY THE HELL DO THESE OTHER PEOPLE DESERVE THE MONEY I WORKED SO HARD FOR INSTEAD OF MY OWN KIDS?!?!?! Well, why do your kids deserve it any more than anyone else? (!?!?!?!) Look, axeman, unless you're going to be worth, say, $10MM by the time you die, you really don't have to worry. Because my beef isn't with a kid inheriting a few hundred thousand and a family home, okay. Any way you cut it, it does not make any sense and is not a defendable position. That is just not true at all. You are completely deluding yourself if you think there will ever be found any "rational" solution to government. It is ALWAYS going to come down to what people think, on an emotional level, is the best thing to do. That born rich guilt must run really deep in Alfonso You know, I suppose in some ways it does. Axeman, if came from a country like mine, where it is simply ludicrous to suggest that the poor -- and they are REALLY poor -- have anywhere near the opportunities in life as someone in my position you might understand me better. Then again, look at your own country. You have 25% of children living under the poverty line. When and how did caring about fellow human beings become so shameful?