Slashdot Mirror

If you actually read the first article it states the primary source of 'subsidy' is tax credits and limits on taxation for certain circumstances. From a 60 year total of around 800 billion, 47% is for direct tax benefits., 20% is for perceived imbalanced price controls and the costs of government oversight (ie the Nuclear regulating agency: NRC), 10% is (mostly to hydroelectric plants) for construction of Dams, access to shipping ports and operations of the Dept of Interior. Which leaves grants for operations of shipping, 6 billion, and R&D expenditures, 153 billion. Thats about 3 billion a year on average of actual subsidy. That is well in line with US government subsidy of other industries... like the 3 billion insurance program for small business loans, or 3 billion for 'improving teachers', or 4 billion for insurance against milk profit margins for farmers. etc, etc http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/

Have you not seen a list of federal funding programs? I know military spending is a lot higher than it should be, but at least the defense of this nation is a justified core element. As of 2005, out of the near 2 Trillion in public expenditures and grants, certainly you would agree that there's some fat here to be trimmed. A list below.

http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/

First of all, my previous comment is certainly not a troll (do you know what a troll is?) but it has been modded as such because it mentions the simple and obvious truth that rich people tend to get rich by working harder and poor people tend to stay poor because they are lazier, which doesn't agree with the pc attitudes of the modders.

I'll say it again: Not a single Tea Party candidate anywhere in the country has called for the elimination of Social Security or Medicare.

Please, say it again if it makes you feel good but it doesn't change the fact that it is completely untrue. Many tea party candidates are in favor of (reforming/privatizing/making optional) SS which all amounts to abolishing. I am not going to go searching for quotes, just google "tea party candidate social security".

I personally very much support eliminating these programs. I want to see them GONE. Do you? If yes, then good, but in that case, how do you reconcile this with the "no compromises" attitude of the Tea Party, which is clearly compromising on this issue? If no, then you're just being hypocritical, since you evidently support socialist "insurance" programs.

It is in the 10 points voted in by the Tea Party supporters Contract From America ( http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/ ) to examine all government programs for constitutionality and a number of prominent Tea Party people have called SS unconstitutional. BTW, are you applying the same criteria for what you call hypocrisy to other parties as well? For example, all Democrat senators voted FOR Patriot act, except for one, Russ Faingold. Does that mean that Democrats are being hypocritical or inconsistent? No, it means that Democrat party as a whole supports PATRIOT act strongly, even though there are some dissenters as is always the case. Same with the Tea Party. As any most political movements, it is directed by the broad areas of agreement, not by blind following of a precise dogma. Less government, lowed taxes, free market. As it happens, I am in favor of abolishing SS and Medicare but I can support candidates who are broadly in favor of reducing the scope of the federal government even if they compromise on specific programs.

As many others have pointed out, the top 10% own far more than 70% of the wealth. Paying only 70% of the taxes is not even a fair share, let alone "far more than enough."

And what is the relation between how much someone has and how much they are due to pay in taxes? Someone who saves more (even after paying their income taxes) is supposed to be taxed again more than someone else who spent more of their money? Why?

Attacking the Making Work Pay credit on the grounds that it is "once off" is a very strange accusation. Does that mean you would support it more if it were permanent? And if the "once off" nature of the tax credit is a major objection, why aren't you lobbying to make the credit permanent, rather than opposing it bitterly?

No, if you read my reply again you will see that my opposition was with equating one of the hundreds of obscure government programs ( http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/) with income tax cuts.

Firefighting, Roads, Water: this is all debatable and not at all clear cut as you suggest. The reasons to have those specific things run by the government have all to do with practical considerations and not principles. I agree that in some cases it is desirable to have government run things but only as a last resort, i.e when it is either impossible or hopelessly impractical for private businesses to do so and only when having those services is of crucial importance. If a way can be found to have roads, utilities, firefighters run privately while still providing the same or better level of service, I think it should be done.

Pollution: it is pretty clear that the government does have a role in regulating pollution to some extent, but the devil is in the detail.

Safety: I can't find it online now but there was a great article (I think by Alan Greenspan, back in his libertarian days) about how health and safety regulation can reduce health and safety just as well as it can improve it. In a nutshell, the incentive of businesses to compete on their safety record is reduced and the incentive to barely meet the minimum government standards, which are typically written up by the industry itself - who else has the knowledge and incentive (and lobbying money) to write them - is increased.

In any case, those are all minor issues that don't really affect the debate. Ok, I'll let you have those and the disabled benefits and helping the orphans and having a minimal safety net for the hungry etc and still we are talking about a government that is far less than half the size of the one we have now so I'll be happy with that. But please justify every one of these 100s of government agencies http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml with their employees on average earning more than the equivalent market rate in the private sector, every one of these 100s of government spending programs http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/ , 70% of the federal budget that is taken up by entitlements, the insane amount of intrusion into peoples lives by silly regulation that could fill up a football stadium, the fact that nobody in fact can count many laws we have, never mind have any realistic chance of obeying them all, with several tens of thousands of pages of new laws passed each year etc etc. Libertarians are not anarchists. We have a government that is out of control and we need to rein it in, not eliminate it altogether.

Sorry, I didn't realize who I was arguing with, otherwise I would never have started. But ok, let me reply even though your post doesn't deserve it.

Yes. The Teabaggers out in the streets and on TV will never pay any taxes if they can avoid them.

Can you provide some evidence for that? If there is a policy behind the Tea Party movement, it is described in the Contract linked in my signature. The 10 points were voted on by over 1/2 million Tea Party members and supporters. Where does it says that we should have no government, no regulation or no taxes? The point of the Tea Party movement is that our government is now bloated out of all proportion and that it should be cut back to the duties that the constitution intended it to perform. So, yes we should have laws, we should have law enforcement and we should have military and those should be paid for by taxes. We should not NOT have vast and expensive entitlement and welfare programs which make up more than 70% of the budget. We should NOT have 100s of government agencies and their spending programs most of which are nothing but a waste of time and our money on an enormous scale.

By the way, just for future reference, name calling does absolutely nothing to further your arguments. It only makes you appear childish. Arguing is about trying to convince the other person in the validity of your position, not about trying to win a contest of who can offend the other person more.

I hope you are being sarcastic in your praise of the government. Yes of course they should fight to get more out of our tax dollars but we are talking about a few million here, when the federal government

- loses $25 billion (Yep, lost as in nobody knows what happened to it. Yep, $25 billion)- google "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position" section in the Treasury Dept financial report
- wastes $60 billion annually on Medicare fraud. Just wait until Obamacare kicks in.
- spends at least $90 billion on programs that are "ineffective, marginally adequate, or operating under a flawed purpose" (partial audit by the white house)

..etc etc this is just the first 3 examples I found on google with easily linkable references. Here's some more.

Even assuming that ALL of the hundreds of government agencies and spending programs are necessary, there are 100s of billions wasted annually just through inefficiency and carelessness with which those programs are managed.

If they fail to repay the loan, that's about $1.45 per person.

None of these cost a lot per person http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/funding-programs/ but have a habit of adding up. Not to mention the good old farmers: http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=total

If Tesla wants $1.45 right now from me, I'm fairly sure I could afford it.

If Tesla took only the money of people like you who have no problem with it, they wouldn't need a subsidy. They would just need private investors.