Contributors

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

A Most Excellent List

Apparently, we have Christian teenagers reading Notes From the Front. Should I be worried? Ah, maybe not.

One of them sent me an email with a link which contained this wonderful list.

102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes.


Nikto was recently taken to the mat for saying this:

It is a staple of conservative dogma that government can do no right.

Well, take at look at the list of 102 things and count how many you think are legitimate functions of government and are worthy of your tax dollars. I could only find two items on the list that should not be government funded (#74 and #75). Because of my bias against fish (the smell is simply disgusting) and animals (giant pain in the ass) I have to recuse myself from being able to think rationally about either of those expenditures. I'm completely fine with all the rest.

I'd say if you disagree with a majority of them, you pretty much fall in line with Nikto's statement.

10 comments:

last in line said...

You're tried lists/posts like that before. Let's take a look at the first 2 points they list...Soc sec and medicare - umm, we don't have a choice on those 2 items and we cannot opt out of them.

Here is something I posted on this blog back in the April 28 entry...leading me to believe that Mark really doesn't read what conservatives type on here, he just keeps on trucking with the same misrepresentations.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I for one do not miss the brilliance of the attempted strategy here - if a large percentage of people in our society receive a goverment payment/benefit at some point in their lives, even due to things like a dead parent or a subsidized student loan, and then accept criticism from only those who have never received a government payment, then goverment handouts can never be criticized.

Remember also that we cannot opt out of certain programs. Are you really pretending that somebody who believes a particular government service should be changed or reduced has a moral obligation to forgo the use of that service? I, you, Rand, et all are under no obligation to forgo government benefits. Speaking for myself, I am a citizen of this country and I, like all of you, am subject to the obligations and privileges that go along with that. It is not as if we have the choice to opt out of Social Security at a young age...so do liberals really either believe that critics of government programs have an obligation to endure the liabilities attached to the programs while forgoing the benefits? I know that allows you all to scream your favorite word - hypocrisy!

Hypocrisy is so easy. Hell, our current president thinks that folks as rich as him should pay higher taxes yet he took nearly $400,000 of deductions on his 2010 taxes and reduced his tax liability by $150,000. Does that make him a hypocrite? No it doesn’t. He believes that the tax code should be other than it is — which is in no way incompatible with availing himself of the benefits of the tax code as it currently is. Nothing in the tax code forces anyone to take deductions btw.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Put on your critical thinking caps and tell us exactly why the folks who disagree with you should be forced to endure the liabilities of these programs (through tax dollars) while at the same time, forgoing any benefit that may arise from them. Then tell me how that differs from what the guy you voted for did with his taxes this year.

Go.

Nikto said...

That list doesn't even mention the largest single off-budget expenditure in the last 10 years: invading two foreign countries (three if you want to count Libya, which some conservatives say we aren't invading hard enough). And in the long run the major cost of these wars will be pensions and health care for the veterans who fought in them.

You can't insist on lower taxes while fighting two or three wars, adding Medicare Part D coverage, recovering from the biggest financial meltdown in 80 years, rebuilding the Gulf Coast after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and providing disaster assistance for an onslaught of floods, droughts, and tornadoes from the southeast to the midwest to the southwest.

Most Republican legislators voted to spend money on those things, while insisting that taxes should go down further still. It's totally irresponsible. When events conspire against you, you have to increase taxes on the people who can afford it. Just like some people have to take a second job to pay for an unexpected expense.

The "discretionary" part of the budget (of which many of the services on that list consist) is so small that even if we cut it all we'll still be in a big hole. But the "discretionary" expenditures provide the vast majority of the government services that people use every day to conduct their businesses and live their lives. Business would be crippled without the FAA, or the transportation department, or port authorities, etc.

If Republicans offered to cut the military budget by a serious percentage, I would know they are serious about the deficit. But most of them want to increase defense spending more! Politics just seem to be a game to them, and they want to run up the score by destroying programs Democrats favor and add more programs they favor.

Larry said...

Mark, where are your much vaunted and flaunted "critical thinking" skill? The whole list starts with a false premise and goes downhill from there. In fact, the false premise is so outrageously false that it qualifies as a Big Lie.

And when you enthusiastically endorse such mind-boggling falsehood, what does that make you?

Serial Thrilla said...

(below are thoughts that roll through the head of Larry, Haplo9, juris and other posters here)

Hmm...let's see...we can't admit to agreeing with any liberals anywhere. Admitting anything is right about what they say means we lose and they win. And boy oh boy has this list really stumped us. I know! Let'a attack Mark for not being a critical thinker

Once again, nice Rove, sirs!

Mark Ward said...

This list (like the Socialist Pledge before it) served two purposes. The first was to illustrate that no one is happy with how our tax dollars are spent. Some of us (mostly Democrats and liberals) are simply more adult about it. My priorities aren't necessarily going to be last in line's priorities. Yet I don't bitch nearly as much about programs that I don't support as do my colleagues on the right. Essentially, you guys have a very narrow focus of what government should be...which brings us to the second point.

This list demonstrates that the government is successful in a variety of areas where the private sector falls short. In some cases, much more successful. In short, the government isn't around to only "protect us from bad guys." It's there to build infrastructure, regulate commerce, and manage essentials like water. It's there to keep our country clean of pollution and preserve our land. Education, travel, and communication are all things the government has a hand in and does well. Having all of this privatized would be disastrous.

Larry, I believe I have noted several times that I have not achieved the ideal of critical thinking that I have listed on this blog. It's something I continually strive for in my life and certainly fall short.

Now the fact that I can write that last paragraph makes me a more reflective person than most who post here. So, my point is that I am a lot closer to the ideal of critical thinking than you, Haplo9, juris, and some others are on here. I have yet to hear any sort of analysis that is "open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, and honest in facing personal biases" in regards to liberals and progressives from any of you. Until I see that, my statements regarding critical thinking, me, you, and the others are very honest and accurate.

Larry said...

And yet the very first premise of the whole damned post is that if you think taxes are too high or that the government is squandering money on things it shouldn't be, then you obviously don't want too pay any taxes at all. That is complete BULLSHIT. A false premise and a series of logical fallacies is supposed to be illustrative of just what, exactly?

And Serial, just what am I supposed to agree with here? The whole list is demolishing a strawman argument that no one except anarchists have made.

I would personally be quite fucking happy to opt out of Social Security and Medicare, except that I have no damned choice. If I work and follow the law, I have to pay and pay and pay. If I have to pay the taxes all my life, then I'm damned well going to expect something in return more than the "fuck you very much" the author has in mind just because I don't want to pay even more than I do already (with the expectation that I'm going to see very little, if anything, anyway).

The author's point #3 about the military is especially egregious crap because the military and defense actually is a Constitutionally mandated function of the Federal government.

This kind of utter confusion of ideas and scatter-brained thinking is more like something a cum-burbling crack whore would come up with after a 5-day bender.

juris imprudent said...

three if you want to count Libya, which some conservatives say we aren't invading hard enough

Very funny N - using a backhanded swipe at [some] conservatives to defend a very illiberal action by Obama the Magnificent.

Most Republican legislators voted to spend money on those things, while insisting that taxes should go down further still.

I agree. Perhaps we should stop invading foreign countries - not because it is immoral, but because we could use the budget savings.

of which many of the services on that list consist

Not true. Many of the services on that list have not a fucking thing to do with the FEDERAL govt (being state or municipal in nature). Of course my local govt doesn't plow the streets either - but then that isn't much of a problem in these parts.

Politics just seem to be a game to them, and they want to run up the score by destroying programs Democrats favor and add more programs they favor.

Indeed, and Dems do the same shit. I think you have to be a shameless shit-eater to criticize one party for this and not both.

And speaking of shameless shit-eaters...

below are thoughts that roll through the head of Larry, Haplo9, juris and other posters here

Some of us (mostly Democrats and liberals) are simply more adult about it.

What was that about childish insults... and from whom???

Having all of this privatized would be disastrous.

Is it not true, oh teacher of history, that for much of this country's history many of these things were privately (co-op or for-profit) provided? How then did we ever survive if this was such a disastrous state?

I dare wager that if govt provided ONLY those 102 items, you would be screaming about how it wasn't doing enough. Remember, I have a lower bound on how small govt could get (before it ceases to be govt) - you are the one with no upper bound (let it get as big as it can).

Now the fact that I can write that last paragraph makes me a more reflective person than most who post here.

Look who just has to win the most-reflective-person contest! ROTFLMAO

Anonymous said...

...the fact that I can write that last paragraph makes me a more reflective person than most who post here. So, my point is that I am a lot closer to the ideal of critical thinking than you, Haplo9, juris, and some others are on here.

Sounds like the "magic words" concept, like "If I say my prayers every night, if I die in my sleep I'll go straight to Heaven." Sure, you can write whatever you please. You can even believe in whatever you wrote, with all your heart. Are you under the impression that saying it and believing it, all by themselves, render it true?

Let's rephrase the above:

Larry, I believe I have noted several times that I have not achieved the ideal of critical thinking that I have listed on this blog. It's something I continually strive for in my life and certainly fall short.

I am aware that I have prejudices and habits in my thinking, which sometimes steer my worldview in directions that are not only inaccurate, but fail to meet my own expectations of what my worldview should be.

Now the fact that I can write that last paragraph makes me a more reflective person than most who post here. So, my point is that I am a lot closer to the ideal of critical thinking than you, Haplo9, juris, and some others are on here.

And since I am aware that there are some prejudices and habits in my thinking and am willing to admit them, I don't have to worry about those that render inaccurate results as long as they don't fail to meet the standards of what I think my worldview should be. In other words, if I accept the limitations of the prejudices I am comfortable accepting the existence of, I can go ahead and claim the ones I am in denial about don't even exist and it's still okay.

A teacher is unable to spot the flaw in this?

Last in line said...

I don't think that list serves the purposes Mark claims it does. It does nthing to tell me how "successful" the post office has been. That drummer I ran into out in Buffalo that night is a mailman now and he told me a majority of what he delivers on his route anymore is junk mail.

I guess there isn't a good reason why some of us have to forgo any little benefit considering we are forced into the liability. If there is a reason, nobody here put it on cyber-paper.

Anonymous said...

"(below are thoughts that roll through the head of Larry, Haplo9, juris and other posters here)"

You and Marxy roll together.

Don't talk about what is written, talk about what YOU think they mean!

Christ, you are useless.