Obama promises $100 million to Haiti

[JS316]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/14/haiti.earthquake/index.html?hpt=T1

President Obama on Thursday promised $100 million in immediate American relief aid to Haiti -- an amount he said would grow in the year ahead.


Hooray for forced charity!

Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

Where would that 100 million have gone if it wasn't given to the Haiti?

It's not as if you would have seen any of it.

 

[Braaq]

Where would that 100 million have gone if it wasn't given to the Haiti?

It's not as if you would have seen any of it.

the millions of american people in need, not added to our deficit, etc

just a few ideas

 

[JS316]

the millions of american people in need, not added to our deficit, etc

just a few ideas

But surely if that money wasn't donated, your life wouldn't have changed in the slightest.

 

[Braaq]

But surely if that money wasn't donated, your life wouldn't have changed in the slightest.

This is true. But if we all thought like this and didn't think of the bigger picture then we would be.... oh wait, that is how 99% of people think

 

[Hypocrisy86]

each week, ( i get paid once a week) i donate 5$ to United way from my direct deposit, not to mention my 25.83$ a week i pay for health insurance. donations help but i dont think it matters that much due to the economy, and companies wanting more of the donations to help their campaigns,ads, etc..

 

[fdelval]

does anybody think that america is just making his way to the recostruction of haiti?

i mean, the country was already broken and the earthquake just finished them, who will recontruct it? maybe the one who "helped" the most?

 

[Braaq]

does anybody think that america is just making his way to the recostruction of haiti?

i mean, the country was already broken and the earthquake just finished them, who will recontruct it? maybe the one who "helped" the most?

Although it should not be our part alone I can see that being a very real possibility. And probably in payment we will build a naval base there or something

 

[Ryeland]

Can we please have a discussion on government without the old liberal strawman of "roads and infrastructure" ? The Federal Government doesn't typically pay for your local roads and power lines and such, typically it's city and state/provincial governments who handle this responsibility, but this is of course not counting federal government "stimulus" spending. Besides, the federal income tax is less than 40% of their revenues in the US. It's silly to think these things wouldn't exist without a huge government, as is it to infer they wouldn't when one is opposed to massive government wasteful spending.

It is not charity coming from the government. Did Obama ask people if they wanted this? Not a chance, it was just announced. You may support your tax dollars going to Haiti, but someone else might not, why should they be forced to? I fully encourage people to donate to Haiti, there are options now where people can donate via text messaging and it shows up on your monthly bill!

What people support is not government spending their money, that's why people do things like look for every possible tax write off and ways to do things under the table, what they support is government giving someone else's money going to Haiti, and health care, and education, and most other things. That isn't charity.

Roads and Infrastructure is not a strawman. It is a simplification into terms that everyone understands. Because the average person is so, for lack of a better word, ignorant about all the infrastructure that makes their daily life possible, you have to bring it into terms they can understand and appreciate on a personal level. What my comment was, is that no single person has enough insight/foresight to properly portion out their income to support all the things they use in the modern world. That was the essence of what I was saying.

As we have discussed in previous threads, I am a fan of smaller government. But the idea of no income taxes at all is just plain silly. I am aware that it is not the feds that take care of roads. There is certainly bloating the in the government, and it needs to be cut. But propagating the idea of no income tax is counter productive. 40% of the revenue being from income tax is still huge.

You are right the forced donations aren't charity. The text thing is fantastic, what an excellent use of technology. And your personal donations are something to be commended. But part of living in a democracy is compromising.

 

[Ironslave]

Roads and Infrastructure is not a strawman. It is a simplification into terms that everyone understands. Because the average person is so, for lack of a better word, ignorant about all the infrastructure that makes their daily life possible, you have to bring it into terms they can understand and appreciate on a personal level. What my comment was, is that no single person has enough insight/foresight to properly portion out their income to support all the things they use in the modern world. That was the essence of what I was saying.

As we have discussed in previous threads, I am a fan of smaller government. But the idea of no income taxes at all is just plain silly. I am aware that it is not the feds that take care of roads. There is certainly bloating the in the government, and it needs to be cut. But propagating the idea of no income tax is counter productive. 40% of the revenue being from income tax is still huge.

You are right the forced donations aren't charity. The text thing is fantastic, what an excellent use of technology. And your personal donations are something to be commended. But part of living in a democracy is compromising.

It is a strawman, because your federal income tax doesn't go towards roads, and it's implying that without an income tax they wouldn't exist, this is untrue, and that's why it is a strawman.

Again I ask you, why is it silly to think that the US Government could eliminate their income tax, cut back their spending to levels of the year 2000, and have essentially the exact same number on the balance sheet? No offense, but I think the only thing silly is to think this couldn't be done.

Yeah, looks like a ton of the federal budget is spent on roads, how would they survive cutting 40% of their revenues on this well spent balance sheet?

 

[Ryeland]

You are right about the amount of Federal money going to roads. However the article to which I was responding made no distinction between Federal income tax and State taxes. It also went as far as to suggest no income taxes. I apologize if I misinterpreted what level of government you were talking about, but until recently you did not make that clear. The article also does a poor job of clarifying that issue.

I am aware that there are a few states with no income taxes. However the money to keep up infrastructure must come from somewhere, so whether its sales or income tax, its still tax.

I am certainly not opposed to trimming the excess fiscal fat of the government. But the idea of eliminating federal income tax is silly. Without federally funded organizations such as NASA we would not have many of the the amenities (GPS, Satellite Phones, Scientific Data about the universe, worldwide communication) that we consider essential today. Because no one person is going to sit at home and think, "I am going to fund a bunch of guys to go to the moon". Even though the DoD wastes cash like crazy a great deal of technological developments have come out of those contracts and dollars. Things like the internet were originally military research.

Without large groups of people coming together to fund these crazy ideas we would lose much of what we have today.

 

[Ironslave]

You are right about the amount of Federal money going to roads. However the article to which I was responding made no distinction between Federal income tax and State taxes. It also went as far as to suggest no income taxes. I apologize if I misinterpreted what level of government you were talking about, but until recently you did not make that clear. The article also does a poor job of clarifying that issue.

I am aware that there are a few states with no income taxes. However the money to keep up infrastructure must come from somewhere, so whether its sales or income tax, its still tax.

I am certainly not opposed to trimming the excess fiscal fat of the government. But the idea of eliminating federal income tax is silly. Without federally funded organizations such as NASA we would not have many of the the amenities (GPS, Satellite Phones, Scientific Data about the universe, worldwide communication) that we consider essential today. Because no one person is going to sit at home and think, "I am going to fund a bunch of guys to go to the moon". Even though the DoD wastes cash like crazy a great deal of technological developments have come out of those contracts and dollars. Things like the internet were originally military research.

Without large groups of people coming together to fund these crazy ideas we would lose much of what we have today.

I haven't ever said I favor no taxes, just much much less lower taxes and I'm against the income tax. You mentioned it yourself, several states do not have an income tax and they survive just fine. I like the idea of no federal income tax, and letting states/provinces decide themselves. If a person doesn't like their state policy, then they can move, this was the way it was designed.

Why are you discussing NASA and the income tax? Just look at the chart and see how much NASA consumes from the budget. This is the same thing as the "roads" argument, you're arguing that without an income tax these wouldn't exist, which is untrue. The problem is you're making it seem like no income tax means no revenues for the federal government, it isn't even half of their revenues. Is it really that hard to understand?

 

[Ryeland]

I haven't ever said I favor no taxes, just much much less lower taxes and I'm against the income tax. You mentioned it yourself, several states do not have an income tax and they survive just fine. I like the idea of no federal income tax, and letting states/provinces decide themselves. If a person doesn't like their state policy, then they can move, this was the way it was designed.

Why are you discussing NASA and the income tax? Just look at the chart and see how much NASA consumes from the budget. This is the same thing as the "roads" argument, you're arguing that without an income tax these wouldn't exist, which is untrue. The problem is you're making it seem like no income tax means no revenues for the federal government, it isn't even half of their revenues. Is it really that hard to understand?

I may be making it seem like it means no revenue. It is not that hard to understand. NASA would be one of the first things to go if tax revenues were drastically decreased. Many of the "superfluous" government programs would go and we would only ever have "safe" investments.

The problem is that you are making it seem as though federal income taxes are the devil. The dollars have to come from somewhere, sales tax or whatever you are still being taxed. The days of living as 50 individual states, or provinces or whatever you wanna call them are over.

The states that survive with no income taxes, like Texas often make fortunes off of oil or some other commodity they possess (much like Alberta in Canada). Expecting this to work in every state is erroneous.

But clearly we are just not understanding each other on some level. Why are you against income taxes? I think if I understand your reasoning here it might help me explain my ideas in a way that would be more focused.

 

[Ironslave]

I may be making it seem like it means no revenue. It is not that hard to understand. NASA would be one of the first things to go if tax revenues were drastically decreased. Many of the "superfluous" government programs would go and we would only ever have "safe" investments.

The problem is that you are making it seem as though federal income taxes are the devil. The dollars have to come from somewhere, sales tax or whatever you are still being taxed. The days of living as 50 individual states, or provinces or whatever you wanna call them are over.

The states that survive with no income taxes, like Texas often make fortunes off of oil or some other commodity they possess (much like Alberta in Canada). Expecting this to work in every state is erroneous.

But clearly we are just not understanding each other on some level. Why are you against income taxes? I think if I understand your reasoning here it might help me explain my ideas in a way that would be more focused.

Doubtful NASA would be one of the first, it should be the overseas spending first, then slashing the treasury department, then social security. Wyoming has no personal or corporate income tax and they survive just fine. If Wyoming can do it, pretty safe bet to think every state could indeed do it.

You are right, the days of living as individual states/provinces is over, and it sucks. I just hate that government takes so much of what I earn instead of allowing me to spend it and do what I want with it which should be my right. I hate paying for kids to fake sick and go to the doctor to get a note because they didn't study for their social studies test, and for people who go to the emergency room with a sprained ankle, or a cold, and paying for the lipid medications for the obese all through universal health care. I hate watching TV and hearing Canada's Chief Public Health Officer saying that Canada has enough H1N1 vaccines to vaccinate every person in the country, yet I'd bet the number of people who got it was well less than 25%. I hate having to pay for a permit to build a deck on my property and build it according to specific standards.... and so on.

Canada's parliament is currently prorogued (suspended), and nothing has changed with parliament not going to work. I think the country, and many others would be a lot better off with government a lot smaller, and working a lot less figuring out things to take my money and spend it on to feel like they're justifying their positions.

 

[Ryeland]

Doubtful NASA would be one of the first, it should be the overseas spending first, then slashing the treasury department, then social security. Wyoming has no personal or corporate income tax and they survive just fine. If Wyoming can do it, pretty safe bet to think every state could indeed do it.

You are right, the days of living as individual states/provinces is over, and it sucks. I just hate that government takes so much of what I earn instead of allowing me to spend it and do what I want with it which should be my right. I hate paying for kids to fake sick and go to the doctor to get a note because they didn't study for their social studies test, and for people who go to the emergency room with a sprained ankle, or a cold, and paying for the lipid medications for the obese all through universal health care. I hate watching TV and hearing Canada's Chief Public Health Officer saying that Canada has enough H1N1 vaccines to vaccinate every person in the country, yet I'd bet the number of people who got it was well less than 25%. I hate having to pay for a permit to build a deck on my property and build it according to specific standards.... and so on.

Canada's parliament is currently prorogued (suspended), and nothing has changed with parliament not going to work. I think the country, and many others would be a lot better off with government a lot smaller, and working a lot less figuring out things to take my money and spend it on to feel like they're justifying their positions.

All valid concerns and problems. I agree that many of my tax dollars are misspent. I too would love to have a smaller government, and lower taxes. I don't think the government should decide how to spend my money.

I hate that smokers can choose to smoke all their lives and then get their lung cancer treatment paid for by the rest of us. I hate that I have to get building permits too. But I can see why I need a building permit. If we didn't have building inspectors contractors and builders would screw everyone. Heck, look at what they get away with even though we have regulations and inspectors.

That being said, I do think you are going to be taxed no matter what. On the goods you purchase, or on your salary directly. I too want to stop the abuses and shortcomings of the system. But getting taxed is a necessity in modern society. There is a reason why the last 100 years have seen so many incredible advances in technology, science, literature, arts and that is the fact that there are nations of people working together through their governments to make an environment where innovation, invention and interaction are fostered.

You still have the right to spend your money how you see fit. You can choose to not pay your taxes. There are consequences for those kinds of actions. One of the choices you make is living in this country. You could move around and try to find somewhere that you feel better suits your views.

Our future is a cooperative one. A properly funded, minimalist, democratic government is the best way to ensure we as a society continue to advance. Taxes are the way to make sure we as a society function in an integrated manner. Whether it be sales tax, or income tax, its still tax.

The current system has its problems, and there are many of them, but it also does things right. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

 

[Ironslave]

I hate that smokers can choose to smoke all their lives and then get their lung cancer treatment paid for by the rest of us.

Agreed. Solution, let people smoke all they want, and if they get a lung condition, then they have themselves to blame and have to pay (literally) the consequences.

I hate that I have to get building permits too. But I can see why I need a building permit. If we didn't have building inspectors contractors and builders would screw everyone. Heck, look at what they get away with even though we have regulations and inspectors.

Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. If a company screws someone, then that's dumb, and it would mark the end of their business. The ones who do good jobs would still be rewarded for their success, and I don't really know if I agree that the government's inspectors really do anything that a qualified engineer/builder can't do. With regards to a deck like I imagined, it's my deck, it doesn't affect anybody but me, just an example of government flexing their tyrannic muscle.

That being said, I do think you are going to be taxed no matter what. On the goods you purchase, or on your salary directly. I too want to stop the abuses and shortcomings of the system. But getting taxed is a necessity in modern society. There is a reason why the last 100 years have seen so many incredible advances in technology, science, literature, arts and that is the fact that there are nations of people working together through their governments to make an environment where innovation, invention and interaction are fostered.

Very very very little of this innovation has come from government, mostly government just gets in the way and slows down the process.

You still have the right to spend your money how you see fit. You can choose to not pay your taxes. There are consequences for those kinds of actions. One of the choices you make is living in this country. You could move around and try to find somewhere that you feel better suits your views.

Not really, I can't choose to spend my money how I want when government takes half of it, if I choose to peacefully not pay my taxes I get locked up. Saying I can choose to not pay my taxes is like saying I can take a gun in a crowded area and open fire, theoretically it can be done, but there are grave consequences if I do. I'm not free to harm other people, just like I'm not free to keep most of the money that I earn.

Our future is a cooperative one. A properly funded, minimalist, democratic government is the best way to ensure we as a society continue to advance. Taxes are the way to make sure we as a society function in an integrated manner. Whether it be sales tax, or income tax, its still tax.

The current system has its problems, and there are many of them, but it also does things right. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

The problem is government isn't ever properly funded and minimalist, never. It always seeks to get more and more power and it has, and it gets it. Society has advanced in some regards, but it's also regressed in many regards as well. If we did have a properly funded minimalist government, we would be better off.... too bad we don't.

 

[Ryeland]

Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. If a company screws someone, then that's dumb, and it would mark the end of their business. The ones who do good jobs would still be rewarded for their success, and I don't really know if I agree that the government's inspectors really do anything that a qualified engineer/builder can't do. With regards to a deck like I imagined, it's my deck, it doesn't affect anybody but me, just an example of government flexing their tyrannic muscle.

I guarantee it would happen that way. It already happens very often. Contractors and builders cut corners, make a quick buck and shut down their business before the shit hits the fan. Then they open up another business. I will use highway paving as an example. One summer i worked for the government supervising a giant construction company which was resurfacing portions of the 401 (the biggest and most used highway in ontario). My job was to make sure they put the proper thickness of asphalt down. If no one was there on a specific day they were, a holiday or whatever, the thickness was always half of what the contract stated was the minimum. Left to their own devices, these people would have screwed the Ontario taxpayers out of a fortune. Your deck is a bit of a bummer, but the reason all projects need a permit is to make sure people don't have a contractor do it under the table. The sad part is, that today the average homeowner doesn't know how to build a sturdy deck, and an unethical contractor could screw them. I am not defending ignorance, but no one should be able to sell a service or product that is not to code.

Very very very little of this innovation has come from government, mostly government just gets in the way and slows down the process.

Most of the innovation does not come directly from the government, but is made possible because of it. The system we have now has lead to the advances we have experienced. Things like the internet, GPS, our place in the universe, Super colliders, Supersonic flight are all results of government funding and experiments resulting in these advances. It is far more likely that these advances would not have occurred without government intervention than it is that the government didn't aid in their creation.

Perhaps Not really, I can't choose to spend my money how I want when government takes half of it, if I choose to peacefully not pay my taxes I get locked up. Saying I can choose to not pay my taxes is like saying I can take a gun in a crowded area and open fire, theoretically it can be done, but there are grave consequences if I do. I'm not free to harm other people, just like I'm not free to keep most of the money that I earn.

The money you earn is a result of the system that exists. Without current infrastructure, regulations, and organizational structures it is unlikely that you would enjoy the job and pay you do. You are free to harm other people, you just don't like the consequences. Railing against this is like complaining about gravity. Sure you can jump off the building, but hitting the ground would suck. But you have no problem using gravity to sit down, or to make sure that the leak you take ends up in the toilet. Your work experience is made better by the government in ensuring you can't be fired for refusing unsafe work. By making sure you have a minimum of vacation and sick days.

Perhaps The problem is government isn't ever properly funded and minimalist, never. It always seeks to get more and more power and it has, and it gets it. Society has advanced in some regards, but it's also regressed in many regards as well. If we did have a properly funded minimalist government, we would be better off.... too bad we don't.

It doesn't always get the power it wants. Just because that government hasn't been properly funded or minimalist, doesn't mean it can't be. It is up to the people, you and me, to make sure our governments are accountable. The government is not some far off all powerful entity. It is made of people.

In any case, this has been an excellent discussion so far. And while I believe we want the same things for our government and society, we have differing views on how to get there. But it is great to have a good discussion such as this to challenge my ideas.