Published: Sunday, Aug. 19 2012 10:42 p.m. MDT
Why entitlements? We have all paid into them. If you don't even want to
discuss reducing our military then you don't know what the vast majority of
our budget goes to.
Sorry David, but reality doesn't support your premise.Taxes are
lower now than any time in the last several decades, and the only thing tax cuts
are accomplishing is channeling money away from the poor and toward the wealthy.
Cutting taxes didn't produce jobs, it only produced skyrocketing debt.
Moreover, our tax policies are wildly over-complicated and riddled with
loopholes that actually provide incentives for corporations to ship US jobs
overseas. Before we worry too much about the impact of tax rates on
job creation, we urgently need to just plain overhaul the tax system itself.Finally, can we talk about the "entitlements" represented by
taxpayers' massive subsidies of the oil, coal and gas industry and
cost-plus military contracts?
"In taxation, I understand that most of the wealthy are S corporations that
employ people"Do you know that for a fact or has it been
repeated enough by the right that it is now accepted as fact?Even if
true, I still dont understand the premise that if taxes are raised, the wealthy
will stop hiring.Taxes have been higher under Clinton, Bush 1,
Carter, Reagan and every other presidents in the last 60 years. Suddenly a 3 %
rise (still much lower than virtually all of the last 60 years) is suddenly
going to do great damage.The logic escapes me.Now, I
strongly agree that we need to cut entitlements. But, I also think the Military
needs to be cut and the taxes could be raised modestly to levels that saw great
economic growth.One can easily make a case that top tax rates of 90%
stifle growth. Same with 70%.However you would be hard pressed to
make the case at 40%. History would not support you.Just ask
The vast majority of our budget does not go to the military. Defense spending is
big (too big), but entitlements are bigger. The problem is entitlements are
popular nation wide, so politicians (especially Republicans) try to balance the
federal budget by slashing spending on the ~25% or so that is not entitlements
or defense, without increasing revenue. Which ain't gonna work.
What's so bad about "entitlements?"Along
with"amnesty," "entitlement" is being redefined by many as a bad
thing. Those who respect biblical values may wish to consider these quotes
(EMPHASIS is mine):Wo unto them that ... take away the RIGHT from
the poor of my people ... ! (2 Nephi 2:1-2, Isaiah 10:1-2)... they
turn aside the poor in the gate from their RIGHT. (Amos 5:12)... and
the RIGHT of the needy do they not judge. (Jeremiah 5:28)If you are
concerned about the biblical condemnations of the "sluggard" or the
"idler," study the welfare program of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and see how properly designed welfare assistance encourages
neither.It would a great thing to see our efforts as citizens,
regardless of religious belief, align our entitlement programs according to
Liberals love to whine that we (they always point their accusing fingers at
others) are not paying enough taxes and they say taxes are lower now than at
some magical reference point in the past. Baloney! Add up ALL the taxes we pay
and you will find that we are NOT paying less in taxes today! Now that we have
Obamacare, which the SCOTUS says is another tax, most American’s total tax
burden will hit an all time high! And still it isn’t enough money for
liberals and it never will be! Socialism (liberalism) is economically
unsustainable; always has been, always will be!
How about tackling the BIGGEST entitlement program of all?The one
that keeps the Pentagon rolling.
Mountanman... How many times do I have to explain to you that
"Socialism" is not inherently evil? Socialism is your public schools,
highways, police and fire departments. Socialism is the US Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marines, Coast Guard and Veterans Admin. Socialism is your national
parks, forests, and monuments. I could go on and on but I doubt that you can
ever get the point. Socialism and Liberalism are not the same thing, and are
not connected at the hip the way that Capitalism and the right wing seem to be.
And, to your last point, many services have been socialized in this country
going back to its founding, and we are all the better off for it.
Mountanman... we got 14% of GDP in federal tax revenue the last couple years.
Pretty much every single year from 1950-2010 was between 16 and 20% of GDP with
an average around 18%. Taxes are at their lowest rates in over half a century.
That's just a fact. I know you believe in the Laffer curve, well we've
cut taxes so much that we're now on the left side of the curve which
suggests the "sweet spot" is somewhere around the Clinton rates.
I sometimes think that newspapers would put letters/articles like this in the
paper to distract liberals from their real mission to defeat conservatism. The comment in Wikipedia site:“an S corporation is not
subject to the 10 percent of taxable income limitation applicable to charitable
contribution deductions.”is just one of those loopholes people
talk about in our tax system.
A little fact that no one wants to talk about as they attack the poor, only
1.67$ goes to welfare and 4.58% goes to healthcare. even if we completely
eliminate both of these programs how much closer would we be to really changing
spending? If people want real change cuts are obviously going to have to come
from across the board and taxes are going to have to return to pre-bush tax cut
rates, back to the last time we actually had a higher GDP then expenses.
I should add that I agree with the letter writer that investment in research and
development would be a worth while, I would however add to that rebuilding or
@ Mike in Cedar City. I would maintain that when about 35% of Americans are
receiving some form of government welfare entitlement, we have moved way past
your definition of socialism; fire depts., public schools or a local police
dept. We have moved toward a European form of socialism that borders on
communism; collectivism and redistribution!@ alt134.. I agree that federal
income taxes have gone down thanks to GWB but I was referring to all taxes, not
just income taxes and if you add up all the taxes, the total is at an all time
high in most states.
Until you're willing to slice at the big apple on the tree, military
spending, you can tear off all the small apples and make no difference.
Mountanman. Did you watch the opening ceremony for the 2012 Olympic games. The
British sent 13 minutes extolling their socialized national health system, to
great applause. But I want you to tell us what we have done to move to "s
European form of socialism that borders on communism, collectivism, and
(redistribution?")? I think you are overstating your case. But, be
specific and share your wisdom with us all.Oh, and Social Security
and Medicare are not "welfare" Except for a few on disability these are
entitlements that have been earned and prepaid over long years gainful
The most communistic thing I ever did was live and work in the military.The only place I was forced to take public showers as well. You would
think for 700 billion a year they could get some shower curtains. The military is by far the place we spend the most worthless money. What with
the american public armed to the teeth with thier second ammendment iron I
hardly see the need fo much of a standing army.
To "freedomingood" if "The most communistic thing I ever did was
live and work in the military." Then you have not lived under communism or
anything close to it. The military is more capitalistic than communistic. You
see, Generals are paid more than Privates, there is a pay scale based on rank.
Also, you still have personal property. If it was communistic, you could only
live in government housing, eat government supplied food (no Burger King, or BX
food court), and receive your supplies directly from the government. The
military runs more like a large corporation, under capitalism.To
"John C. C." just remember D&C 56:17 "Wo unto you poor men,
whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies
are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other
men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor
with your own hands!" Poverty does not justify forcibly taking from those
who have more than you do.
To RedShirt,We're both right, neither the poor nor the rich
should covet riches. Nevertheless it remains a moral duty of the rich to
voluntarily redistribute their riches to the poor so that the "poor are
exalted in that the rich are made low." Voluntarily voting for candidates
who believe in social welfare is a great communal way to express group
commitment to Christian giving.Of course a minority will always
object. They remind me of the conservative tax evaders and liberal draft
dodgers of the '60's. They refused to sacrifice a little
self-interest to enjoy the strength of group cooperation. I'm
glad we can enjoy the power of cooperation under a Constitution that lets us
choose our lawmakers.
To "John C. C." you are wrong. I can't find the quote right now,
but one of the prophets in the past 20 years said that we should fight against
the government and people who would take away our choices. If we did as you do
and vote for " candidates who believe in social welfare is a great communal
way to express group commitment to Christian giving" we would be going
against God's desire for us to learn to make those choices ourselves.See April 2012 conference report on Elder Larry Y. Wilson: Only upon the
Principles of Righteousness. In there he states that when we "compel
someone to righteousness who can and should be exercising his or her own moral
agency, we are acting unrighteously.” By voting for somebody who would
compel you to give to the poor, you are acting contrary to Christian teachings.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments