re: #116 Obdicut

I didn’t say anything about cutting unnecessary government, though. I don’t see how it’s an easy shuffle from me to Grover Norquist, either. I talked about changing a policy that would have beneficical downstream effects. I didn’t even talk about specifically making any cuts into spending, but adjusting a policy that would lead to a lower demand for prisons, which would wind up with us spending less on prisons.

So why would you start with that statement of mine, and end up with the evil Norquist?

Because you DID speak of cutting unnecessary government. Reread your post about the drug war - ending it with the resulting reduction in prisons, law enforcement, etc. Again, I agree that this needs to happen, but the argument of using this cut to pay for other things is a wrongful argument.

And that argument - that we need to cut things to pay for the rest - is the heart and soul of Norquist’s argument.

[kirkspencer]Thus I push the “pay for it” meme. You want it? Pay for it. Don’t rob someone else, pull the money out of YOUR wallet. Or quite complaining - either works as a first step for me.

I’m sorry, but couldn’t that same exact turn of phrase be used to argue for ending welfare and any support for the poor?

I am all for people recognizing that their tax money actually gets them stuff, and that if they want expanded services people will have to pay for it— as a Californian, I know that it’s very, very hard to convince people of that, as well.

But I object to the personalization of it. Who is the “You?” If I live in a depressed community with polluted water, do we really need to reach into our pockets to pay for a cleanup of that water, and if we can’t, stop complaining?

I didn’t follow your logic. I said it needs paid for by increasing taxes, and you say I’m using argument that says we must end welfare and support for the poor.

“You” is more properly “We.” That said, you’re taking the argument in a strange direction, to a point of absurdism. The question implies that only you will cover the cost, that you will cover all the cost, and that you will cover only the cost. The three are completely untrue. You - and everyone else paying taxes [aka WE] - will cover the cost of making the polluters clean the water. You (and we) will between us cover all the cost. The money we pay will cover not only your water but water in all 50 states, plus border patrol and customs checks and FDA inspections/control of toys and foods and … and all the myriad things we require of our government.

For what it’s worth, I also despise the false argument of “must we make the poor pay?” No, we must not. Raising taxes, as I noted in my first post in this thread, is not truly universal. Instead it should follow the sutton rule - get the money from where the money is. I am only semi-joking when I suggest the simple tax — 50% on ALL income regardless of type or source, $100,000 per person exemption. For several decades now the wealthy have used the poor to protect themselves in arguments, noting how any tax would burden those less well off than themselves.