Entitlements - what's so bad about them?

It sure is! - we have several here who are trying to use figures to convince themselves that the U.S. government was bigger in the 1950's than it is today! That Eisenhower, a respected former WW2 military general, would somehow be comparable to the arrogance and increases in the size and scope of government of this current joke of an administration. Again, who decides what to do about it? If we further soak the top 3%, will 4% thru 10% also not get soaked? 10% thru 20%? How many have we discouraged from innovating and taking risks?

That could be because those at the top are far smarter than the Democrat politicians who are constantly trying to tax their wealth away from them. They find ways to turn government meddling to their advantage, sometimes honestly, sometimes through corruption. It costs the poor, it costs the middle class, and it costs the wealthy who are just below them, the innovators and risk takers. It depends on what it is spent ON. Is it spent giving handouts to the non productive, or on infrastructure? Is it spent on environmental studies and restrictions, or on military, or more prisons?

My argument's not untenable until I see a solution to the problem, that won't ultimately make things worse.

Message 105

quote:

---

I find it ironic that conservatives often talk about how wonderful the country was in the 1950s. Yet during that timeframe, the tax system was heavily progressive, going as high as 90% on top income tax earners. Additionally, there were far more subsidies for things like education. Tuitions were far lower and were actually free for state residents.

​

So if marc is asserting we should go back to those philosophies, I could not agree more.

​

Oh, and unions had far more influence in the 1950s as well.

---

Message 104

quote:

---

If Eisenhower was President today, I expect he'd get about the same criticism as Obama does.

---

Why isn't this correct? Uh, if you don't know the difference between Eisenhower and Obama I'm afraid I don't have time to help you tonight. Have you ever read Federalist Paper #10? What it says is contained in the limits and authorizations of the constitution.

quote:

---

No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community.

---

Federalist No. 10 - Wikipedia Strawman? You don't see any similarities at all between the top few percentage brackets of wealthy people? If they're not stealing their money, if they're not getting it from taxpayers, then someone must be voluntarily giving it to them. If they get it from voluntary actions of free markets, then it's really none of my business exactly how they get it. If you think it needs to be taxed from them because they have too much and do nothing to earn it, then it's up to you to provide support for your position. How is it rigged? By a big government? Why is it that evolutionists believe that the solution to big government corruption is more big government?

I don't automatically hate them because they have more than me. Since what people make in free markets is none of my business, I don't accuse them of anything, or expect them to give anything to me. Pay for politicians and bureaucrats in the U.S. are at record highs as well. In free markets, that's the only way money can be obtained. It doesn't grow on trees in only the yards of the wealthy. Your argument seems to be that a few people get money while doing nothing to earn it, or have never done anything to earn it. Seems pretty absurd to me, unless you can show me how that works. The U.S. Constitution addresses infrastructure, a limited government environment in which businesses can thrive etc. but it doesn't address things like health and education and safety nets, because there would be too many differences of opinion about just how those things should be done, so it leaves it to the states, or to the people, free to address those things privately, with things like private charities.