Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
Oh. OK. I guess you're saying you want to stop driving (government pays for the roads) and eating relatively safe food (who do you think inspects the meat you're eating?). I suppose you also want to revert to an anarchic system of vigilante justice, because the government pays for the police too. Hope your house doesn't catch fire, because you don't want to make the government rich so we'll have to kill off all the fire departments.
Live in an area that gets snow in the winter? There's two strikes against driving. The government funds the plowing, but we can't make the government "rich" so we'll just cut the plows as well. Might as well, because we no longer have any roads to plow anyway.
Let's not forget city sewer, trash collection, etc.
In short, if we don't "make the government rich" we'll quickly find ourselves living in one giant craphole. People want all these services but balk at paying for them with taxes. That's absurd.
|
Nitpicky point, but a lot of those services are funded by local governments - property taxes, per-use fees, etc. Granted, local governments do get some funding from state and federal sources that fund some services, but mostly these things are paid for on a local level.
Mostly, what letting the government keep the tax cuts would do is allow them to either increase spending in certain areas, or decrease the deficit, which would be good for the economy at least in the future. It's not a matter of the government being "rich," it's a matter of whether they are using the funds we give them efficiently, effectively, and for priorities that are in line with what the American people want.
Here's an interesting breakdown of U.S. government spending in 2001:
<a href="http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/resources/MNMilSpend2002.pdf">
http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/reso...lSpend2002.pdf</a>