If a change in the tax laws takes less money away from me, that’s not the same as “giving” me money.
Now, I admit that taxes are necessary. The government must pay for certain things. Moreover, I understand the desirability of using the tax code to encourage (or discourage) certain behaviors. For example, we permit people to deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages; this encourages home ownership.
But here is where I think you miss the boat. The proper argument to support telling “rich people” to “shove it” is to show how the change will encourage economic behaviors you find desirable. You cannot simply assert a right to their money, especially when you say that you’re “giving them” something by cutting taxes. You’re not. You’re taking away less of their money.
In contrast, you are giving poor kids free food. They didn’t earn it. They have no right to it. We do such things because we find it desirable, because it has salubrious effects on the economy in the long term, or because we simply don’t wish to live in a country where kids can’t eat, no matter what they can afford. All of these are valid reasons to fund such programs – but do not lose sight of the fact that they are charity, not something that is owed.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Someone define general welfare for me please.
—Is it true that 1% of the citizens have over 50% of the wealth?—
I don’t know if they do or not, but I do know that such stats are ridiculously misleading. The Economist did an economic model at one point in which they basically created a society called Egalitaria in which everyone lives the exact same life: gets the same wages at the same time, dies at the same time, does not bequest anything, etc. They found that even in this hypothetical world, the most crudely equal society imaginable, you could legitimately construct statistics such as “the richest 10% of the population controls 74% of the wealth.”
We have beaten the shit out of the poor kids. But look at the OP. According to the op ed piece, bunches of people will be hit by this. The elderly. The disabled. Vets. Are you telling me that none of these people deserve to be cared for? Not even veterans?
I expected some outrage about the drop in vet benefits.
I’m not asserting a right to anyone’s money. I’m just saying, as a tax payer (don’t my opinions count?), that I would rather the poor be taken care of before folks receive tax cuts. You can dice it up semantically as much as you like, but the truth is the truth: the poor are being screwed unnecessarily.
I’m the reincarnation of Mother Teresa. I am currently serving as wet nurse to over a hundred babies who would otherwise go hungry because their mothers’ can’t afford formula. Actually, right after I type this post I have to run out and feed the mile-long line of homeless waiting outside of my door.
As you can see, I do my share in addition to paying my taxes so that everyone can be cared for.
If “sematically” implies a distinction without a difference, then I disagree that mere semantics separate us.
That said, I agree there are many solid arguments to be made for not cutting the benefits mentioned in the OP, not the least of which is that it’s simply wrong to not take of people that need care.
What does NOT fly, however, is the suggestion that tax cuts to the more well-off is somehow “giving” them something to which they are not entitled.
National School Lunch Program:
2002……………$6,020
2003……………$6,389
2004……………$6,684
School Breakfast Program:
2002……………$1,541
2003……………$1,681
2004……………$1,798
Child and Adult Care Feeding Program:
2002………….$1,831
2003……………$1,925
2004……………$2,019
Summer Food Service Program
2002………….$307
2003……………$288
2004……………$309
For purposes of comparison, the same site lists the budget of the National School Lunch Program as:
1994…………$4,797
2001…………$5,400
So……….the budget of the National School Lunch Program increased by 12.6% over Clinton’s last six years (that’s 2.1% per year) (I’m not hiding earlier budgets, I just couldn’t find them) and has increased by 23.8% over Bush’s first three years (7.9% per year).
That’s a good question - even if we want to hold adults responsible for their failings, can we really penalize kids for their parents’ financial failings?
And do you really want to live in a country that would let elementary school kids go hungry when we have the means to feed them?
I don’t like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but:
Certain things should be done because they are only right. Helping poor kids with school lunches and providing aid to those unable to provide for themselves is something this country can afford. We should keep doing it. Roads, libraries, schools, etc should be maintained or improved. The war, like it or not, will have to be paid for.
So why do we want a big tax cut at this time? Cutting taxes now seems stupid to me.