NCAAbbs

Long time since I posted anything, but figured some might enjoy this little video.

I enjoyed it!

It was cute and limited in that it didn't mention the government paying for aircraft carriers @ $3 billion each, M1A2 tanks @ $2 million each, F-22s at $50 million each and dozens of other weapon systems at $ millions each that keep America safe--all paid for by that same "wasteful" government. They also left out vocational education as well as educational programs for "exceptional children" most of the states would never begin to afford. Did they mention Medicare and Social Security? It was obviously intended only as a slam on the "dancing" President since Congress, wnich passes ALL taxes and enacts ALL appropriations is NEVER mentioned.

Tim McVey's approach to government hating was not so "cute" but was in the same vein of "it takes all you make" and ruins you in the process. Let's ignore the fact that Americans pay less taxes than the citizens of the 30 top industrialized nations in the world (U.S.News and World Report a few years ago) and get the most for their money because "their government can".

(08-30-2009 07:02 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Let's ignore the fact that Americans pay less taxes than the citizens of the 30 top industrialized nations in the world (U.S.News and World Report a few years ago) and get the most for their money because "their government can".

Where is the proof? Please provide your supporting documentation. Thanks.

I agree it would have been nice had it mentioned reducing the military, and a lot of other areas the government must be reduced, but its a 3 min skeet be a comedian. I was personally annoyed that it included pictures of Lincoln and Grant during a reference to the founders (since neither man would be considered a founder). But, I'm not going to knock it too much, because after all its only a 3 min comedy skeet. Also, I don't see how you get it was aimed at only the President...it says the 'Government' with numerous references to the federal government, which last time I checked included Congress.

Wow, a Tim McVey reference...nice side step of Godwin's Law. There are violent people on all sides of the political debate. Groups like the Weather Underground, and Red Faction have committed violence for leftist movements. Violence should be strongly condemned, and the history of violence acts should not be endlessly invoked simply out of laziness to make an intellectual argument.

As for taxes, what tax rate are you referring to: personal, business, tariffs, sales, or property; Federal, State, or Local; what about hidden taxes like inflation, fees, increased cost due to import restriction or regulator compliance? Comparing tax rates across countries is incredibly difficult because ceteris paribus can not be assumed.

(08-30-2009 08:00 PM)JxGx78 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree it would have been nice had it mentioned reducing the military, and a lot of other areas the government must be reduced, but its a 3 min skeet be a comedian. I was personally annoyed that it included pictures of Lincoln and Grant during a reference to the founders (since neither man would be considered a founder). But, I'm not going to knock it too much, because after all its only a 3 min comedy skeet. Also, I don't see how you get it was aimed at only the President...it says the 'Government' with numerous references to the federal government, which last time I checked included Congress.

Wow, a Tim McVey reference...nice side step of Godwin's Law. There are violent people on all sides of the political debate. Groups like the Weather Underground, and Red Faction have committed violence for leftist movements. Violence should be strongly condemned, and the history of violence acts should not be endlessly invoked simply out of laziness to make an intellectual argument.

As for taxes, what tax rate are you referring to: personal, business, tariffs, sales, or property; Federal, State, or Local; what about hidden taxes like inflation, fees, increased cost due to import restriction or regulator compliance? Comparing tax rates across countries is incredibly difficult because ceteris paribus can not be assumed.

The article did not divide the taxes by level of government or kind of tax. It just did a list based on average per capita taxation for each nation and the USA was below #30 on the list. When we moved in '05, since I would no longer be teaching, we eliminated my magazine article files to cut moving costs and I didn't realize I would need them for a debate in '09. I'll see what I can do about it through my computer inquiry.

While many ague that government is a "necessary EVIL", I take the viewpoint of Professor Kuik (sp?) who made the case that government is a "necessary GOOD" which reflects the cultural values of each generation of voters it represents. Yes, there are dishonest and self-serving politicians, but those qualities don't belong only to politics. People bring them into government from the private sector where they earned the reputation that caused voters to support them when they decided to run for an office. Even a war hero like "Duke" Cunningham can "go bad" due to a lack of character and integrity. MOST are at least as honest as the voters who elected them.

Try here under Public Sector, Taxation and Market Regulation. Its based on revenue as share of GDP and hovers between 25% to 30%. It appears to included states and local tax. It doesn't say explicitly but it would be about right. The mean is around 35% after throwing out all the composite EU stats. The US appears to be with-in one standard deviation of the mean for most year, but on the low side.

A couple problems with the data:
OECD provides no statement of methodology.
Revenue as % of GDP has a lot of flaws, one being how GDP is calculated will vary from country to country.

Next the federal government currently spends $3.94T vs revenue of $2.19T to simply close this gap the revenue would have to almost double, well increase by 80%. Assuming the Laffar effect lets say the federal government simply doubles its take for 20% to 40% (figuring 8% of the taxes goes to State/Local gov'ts). Now we're at 48% of GDP, behind only Denmark and Sweden. Of course this assumes that such a massive increase in taxes doesn't lead to a decrease in GDP which would push the ratio higher. This is simply to pay for what we have now, no new health insurance schemes, not figuring for the effect of the retiring baby boomers which will mean lower tax revenues and higher expenses, or trying to pay down the national debt.

The sad truth is the federal government has made to many promises to many groups and will have to break some of them.

(08-30-2009 08:00 PM)JxGx78 Wrote: [ -> ]I was personally annoyed that it included pictures of Lincoln and Grant during a reference to the founders (since neither man would be considered a founder).

They are the founders of the re-constructed United States of America.

(09-01-2009 02:07 PM)BlazerFromMD Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2009 08:00 PM)JxGx78 Wrote: [ -> ]I was personally annoyed that it included pictures of Lincoln and Grant during a reference to the founders (since neither man would be considered a founder).

They are the founders of the re-constructed United States of America.

Yes, a reconstructed USA in which states' rights under the 10th Amendment are all but gone.

(09-01-2009 02:07 PM)BlazerFromMD Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2009 08:00 PM)JxGx78 Wrote: [ -> ]I was personally annoyed that it included pictures of Lincoln and Grant during a reference to the founders (since neither man would be considered a founder).

They are the founders of the re-constructed United States of America.

I guess, but its not how the term founders is traditionally used, but then again I think the constitution was a betrayal of the revolution and hold some of the founders behind its adoption in lower regard then I hold Lincoln and Grant.

(09-01-2009 04:01 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-01-2009 02:07 PM)BlazerFromMD Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2009 08:00 PM)JxGx78 Wrote: [ -> ]I was personally annoyed that it included pictures of Lincoln and Grant during a reference to the founders (since neither man would be considered a founder).

They are the founders of the re-constructed United States of America.

Yes, a reconstructed USA in which states' rights under the 10th Amendment are all but gone.

I thought their pictures arose out of their pictures being on US currency, rather than their being "founders" since the spirit of the piece concerned monetary policies.
The whole history of America has been the story of a document drawn up by exceptional people who tried to correct the mistakes of its predecessor. A tribute to their success is the fact that there have been only 27 amendments in over 200 years and two of those essentially cancel each other. America has moved from an agrarian demographic (over 90% lived on working family farms while Philadelphia was the largest city at about 20,000) and slavery was accepted as necessary in many states (north and south).
America has expanded "sea to sea", 49th parallel to the Gulf of Mexico, fought many wars-eventually becoming the most powerful war making nation on earth, experienced the industrial revolution with its growth of urban centers, ended slavery (though not subordination of "inferior races"), seen the nationalization of transportation capabilities on land, sea and air, incorporated women into the citizen corps, since 1880 we have tried to limit immigration to "desirable aliens", limited the power of trusts and other monopolies, moved from family farms to agri-business giants holding millions of acres and made great strides in bringing "minorities" into the citizenship mix.
All of these changes have been accomplished by Congressional laws, Supreme Court decisions and Presidential rulings at important times. All of these together have made changes possible while having to alter our basic document very infrequently. We could have a document like Alabama where every little thing requires a new amendment so that only 108 years later we have over 600 amendments and counting.