Here's Gov. Palin during the debate with Sen. Biden:
"Now you [Biden] said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper."Well, you heard it here first, folks: I have uncovered incontrovertible evidence that Sarah Palin has received hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue and converted them to her own personal use!! Where the hell else does she think her salary comes from?
It may be foolish, or unwise, or even unreasonable to suggest that people pay higher taxes; sometimes it surely is all of those. But it is really irresponsible, outrageous, and insulting to say that it's unpatriotic. I dislike paying my taxes as much as anyone, and I dislike the general propensity of the Democrats to spend more and to tax more. But paying taxes (along with voting) is one of the most patriotic things I do. I don't pay my taxes because I'd go to jail if I didn't; I pay my taxes because that is the price we pay to live in the society in which we live, and it's insulting to suggest that somehow I'm being snookered into acting unpatriotically. If the government has things on which it has to spend money, it is sheer Knucklehead Conservatism to say "we need to spend the money — for a war against our enemies, for example, or to pay the medical costs of our retirees — but we won't ask people to pay any taxes to fund it." And it's thoroughly irresponsible of a candidate for high office to suggest that paying taxes is unpatriotic. If McCain and Palin are elected — increasingly unlikely, but just suppose — let's just stop paying our taxes, OK? It would be the patriotic thing to do.
Whoa, folks ... this firestorm of comments is a little more than I bargained for. A couple of responses to the many, many points raised in the comments:
1. If you think I'm such a fool, YOU CAN STOP READING MY POSTS. That's the good thing about the VC - there's lots of other stuff for you to read and argue about.
2. The most interesting comments were those (from the more reasonable ones) suggesting that I mistook "unpatriotic" for "not patriotic." That's a pretty interesting point. To begin with, I would've thought they were, in fact, synonyms. Undressed is the same as not dressed. Unbearable is the same as not bearable. Unkind is the same as not kind. Unintelligent. Unfair. Unreasonable. At least, in most contexts, and most usages.
3. Having said that, I can see the counter-argument that many of you are making here; Palin's not saying "Biden is being unpatriotic", she's saying "Biden is wrong to suggest that paying taxes is patriotic." It's what we lawyers call a "fine" distinction - not irrelevant, I grant you, but, in my opinion, not central to what she was trying to communicate. Look at what she said:
"Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper."
So let me get this straight. It's patriotic to say "lessen the tax burden," but it's not patriotic (oops!! I almost said "unpatriotic") to say "raise taxes to pay for the things you're buying." That's what she's saying, folks. Her words, not mine. Now, many of you seem to think that makes perfect sense, and shows that Gov. Palin understands many things that have eluded morons like me. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. But I still don't get it. It still looks outrageous, over-simplified, and irresponsible, to me. And if that makes you want to call me names, see Point Number 1, above.
4. I know that Gov. Palin knows that her salary is funded by taxes. That was meant as irony. If you didn't catch that, I should've made it clearer.
Update 2. A few of you have tried the interesting strategy of actually reading what I wrote and thinking about it. Here's courtwatcher:
I'm convinced David P is correct here. Palin said:
"In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution."
Try replacing "patriotic" with any of the words David suggests. In these cases, the context and usage make clear that in those cases, "unX" = "not X":
In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not reasonable. Reasonable is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not intelligent. Intelligent is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. etc.
In all these cases, it's clear from the context and usage that "not X" means the same as the compound word "unX" would mean. (Go ahead and explain why this is wrong - all 300+ of you. :-) )
I can see situations in which "unX" would not mean "not X," and commenters have correctly identified some of them. But this isn't one of them, and certainly it isn't obviously one of them. This part of David's post is completely reasonable even if some here disagree with it. To say it's obviously "wrong" or a failure of logic is just incorrect. It's stunning to see how unwilling people are to even imagine that someone might have a different view.
I couldn't (and, I guess, I didn't) say it better myself.
Now, once again — you might disagree with my assessment that Palin's statement was outrageous, or that it is irresponsible for a candidate for public office to make it. That's entirely fair game, and I'm even (though many of you will not believe it) open to persuasion on that. But to all of you who called me some pretty nasty names for making such a foolish logical mistake, maybe you're the ones who need to take a deep breath and look at the text on the page and think about it. Apologies can be sent to me at David.Post@temple.edu :)
Such patent nonsense is not confined to the right (although bizarre theories about the 16th amendment not being ratified, the meaning of the word "income" and so forth do seem to be more common among the Ron Paul crowd than the Ralph Nader crowd).
"I've brushed my teeth every day, isn't that good?"
"Well, Eric, brushing your teeth doesn't really count as good or bad...it more counts as 'brushing your teeth.'"
Palin wasn't saying that paying taxes is unpatriotic, but that there's nothing particularly patriotic about paying taxes. And she's right. Especially when the lion's share of federal taxes goes to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.
You may think that "paying taxes is one of the most patriotic things [you] do." Joe Biden might agree with you. Very, very few other Americans would.
You're the first person to come down with Palin Derangement Syndrome. Relax, man, it's only rock n' roll.
And if not paying taxes is unpatriotic, then I guess Wesley Snipes should have been charged with treason as well.
You're the first person to come down with Palin Derangement Syndrome. Relax, man, it's only rock n' roll.
And if not paying taxes is unpatriotic, then I guess Wesley Snipes should have been charged with treason as well.
You pay your taxes so you don't end up in court with the burden of proof on you, the accused.
You pay your taxes so your property isn't seized, ultimately; although if you are paid as a wage earner, the government already does that two or four times a month.
You want patriotic? Send a salami to someone's boy in the army.
Palin says "Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution."
I'm not really sure from what you've inferred that Palin believes paying taxes itself is unpatriotic. Perhaps you could explain why you believe this is her stand?
Palin's statement that acknowledging the government can be a problem and furthermore that we should always be willing to stand up against the government seems right in the line with mainstream American political ideology. I would go so far as to say that these principles played a large role from the founding on.
I also wonder how many of your co-conspirators would disagree with the statements that the "government...[isn't] always solution." or that "lessen[ing] the tax burden...and get[ting] out of the way and let[ting] the private sector" thrive and prosper is a bad thing? Do you?
But that's not consistent with the rest of her response, which is indeed dumb as bricks.
I guess gov't should've "gotten out of the way" after 9/11 and let the free market deal with al-Qaeda.
KATZ'S
That's my criteria for patriotism.
Wiretapping without a court order? Now that's patriotic !
Daid Post 1, Straman 0
Congrats, David, you won!
preview is my friend; itchy fingers, not.
I can't wait for DP's thoughts on last night's debate. Is it next week yet?
It was Biden's claim that the "rich" should want to pay more in taxes because paying more in taxes was patriotic.
By the way, if Biden, or Obama, or any wealthy Democrat that believes that tax rates on the "rich" are too low has ever, even once, engaged in an act of "patriotism" by voluntarily writing checks to the US treasury, I would be interested in finding that out.
If they think that's how you can demonstrate patriotism, how come not a single one of them has ever engaged in the patriotic act? Is it only patriotic if they force everyone else to do it too?
Theft of my money is only patriotic to those who build their politics on theft. That includes you, it seems.
Everyone agrees that surrendering your child to the government (i.e., the military draft) is patriotic.
Yet some go nuts at the suggestion that surrendering your money to the government (i.e., federal income tax) is patriotic.
(This, incidentally, dispenses with the very first comment from "observer," to the effect that "[d]oing something that you are required to do by law (like paying taxes) is not patriotic." Baloney. People are required by law to comply with draft orders. When they do so, they're acting patriotically. Or would you deny the patriotism of conscripted soldiers?)
"nonpatriotic" ≠ "unpatriotic"
Similar themes appeared regularly in Soviet/Nazi and US propoganda about sacrifice for the state, how noble it was. The US war bond campaigns, for example. But buying a bond still was optional.
Sagar beat me to it, but the argument you demolished is not the one she made. And, while like Anderson I saw two points being made, contra Anderson, I didn’t see them as inconsistent or dumb.
First, she rejects the formulation that equates patriotism with calling for higher taxes (not paying one’s taxes, but “please, sir, may I pay another”).
Second, she argues that it would be better to label as patriotic actions leading to lower taxes – eschewing the knee-jerk request for government intervention in just this special project, or, better yet, identifying area of government involvement where that involvement could be reduced or eliminated. At worst, you can use the South Park formulation and call it asking for less oppressive government, without over-reaching by actually calling it patriotic.
I agree with Gov Palin that citizens should spend more time asking what my country need not do for me, and I strongly agree that labeling a request for higher taxes as a form of patriotism is ludicrous.
Phil
Bunk. The government makes a mandate, so the choice of being patriotic is no longer an option. The only visible choices are compliance with law and noncompliance with law. Either could be morally defensible as better for the country.
In other words: government's restriction of individuals' choices cause patriotism to no longer be the deciding factor (and, I would argue, is indefensible itself).
Except when you live in Alaska where the state motto might as well be "Subsidies R Us", given that the state gets about $14,000 per citizen from the mean ol' fedrul gubmint.
Wow! Welfare! Oh, wait, that's because the federal government owns most of the land in the state.
That comparison is flawed... parents do not surrender their children to the draft, because minor children are not eligible for military service.
I would certainly argue that signing up for the draft is not patriotic at all. It's required. Patriotic acts involve a free will choice. A draftee can act with heroism and patriotism once he's in the armed forces, but registering for Selective Service isn't patriotic.
Anyways, you obviously read Friedman today, but have the same lack of logic. Your argument is a mischaracterization of what she is saying to set up a straw man.
DAVID "NO BRAIN" POST SHOULD STOP POSTING UNTIL HE TAKES LOGIC 101!!!!
What I've noticed about conservative arguments over the years is that when government mandates something that they agree with, it's a manifestation of the will of the people being expressed through their elected representatives. (And how dare unelected judges elevate their personal preferences over a democratically enacted law, etc.)
But when government mandates something that they don't agree with, it's this faceless entity called the State raping everyone.
If paying your taxes as required by law is the most patriotic thing that you do is it ok for me to question your patriotism?
(I actually surveyed those, to the detriment of my regard for my fellow man; the kicker had to be the argument that, if Obama weren't secretly Muslim, he'd go by "Barry" not "Barack.")
Palin Derangement Syndrome is apparently evidenced by wildly *positive* reactions to Palin.
Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper.
What does that have to do with paying for the Iraq war and our national debt?
Can you imagine Palin trying out the just-quoted gibberish on Wm. Pitt the Younger in the House of Commons, circa 1793? I would devote my life to building a time machine, just to enjoy that spectacle.
are you talking of 18+ year adults who can vote? just like the "children/teens killed by guns" even when the said children/teens are adult gangbangers!
RINOs are good at that. The GOP is growing more liberal and using those tactics more and more. Why do Democrats like to hate on "neocons"? The same reason Stalin called Fascists "far-right."
Anderson, I think that this is actually the Ron Paul position. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
What order of patriotism to award the guys who enlisted, did ROTC, etc in order to serve in the military in some advantaged way, e.g. choice of branch or specialty or admission to OCS?
Then we can finally nationalize the health care industry and Hugo Chavez will like us!!!!!!1
"patriotic, adjective: devoted to the well-being or interests of one's country."
"patriot, noun: a person (claiming to be) ready to support or defend his country's freedoms and rights."
Paying duly levied taxes, or serving in the military when conscripted, are "patriotic."
But why listen to the elitist dictionary, instead of "most Americans"?
Of course, he gives about three tenths of one percent of his gross to charity, so he's a patriot:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/04/the-charity-gap/
Sorry.
Ol' Joe Hair-Plugs is a blowtoad and a charlatan.
Patriotism is mostly orthogonal to the decision to comply with a mandate. Keep up, please.
oh boy, i bet you and thomas frank are BFF. if not, you two should definitely get together. you could have quite a good time explaining to each other why you are so much smarter than republicans. for my own amusement, you should get together at a bar in West LA/Hollywood so that you can sit next to two aspiring actors who can't stop commenting on how good looking they are.
The fed's ain't subsidizing tundra up there.
You're implicitly saying that the actions of the government are for the well-being of the country. Why would you automatically make that assumption? This is why we elect people out of office.
Don't confuse comments on the act of filling out your card with comments on the service you performed.
Of course not. It generates income.
You must skip the Bernstein posts.
Whether dissent constitutes "opposition to the country" or merely "opposition to the government" generally depends on whose ox is being gored, I've found.
Eric, Muller
"Everyone agrees that surrendering your child to the government (i.e., the military draft) is patriotic. "
Parents do not surrender their children, the children surrender themselves, as adults, and being forced to join the military is not in and of itself a patriotic act, but it is unpatriotic to refuse to join. Joining by being forced into the draft does not BESTOW patriotism upon an individual, but it also does not remove any patriotism from the person. A forced soldier will either act in his new duties patriotically, or they will act unpatriotically in their duties. People who are drafted and sent overseas who do the diservice of commiting war crimes would be unpatriotic drafties, while people who are drafted and perform their duties without trying to undermine the war effort and those they are stationed below in the chain of command are patriotic. The fact that you joined does not in and of itself determine your patriotism, it is how you act.
Paying taxes is not patriotic, but refusing to pay taxes is unpatriotic. I would say a person who knows they could get a bigger refund by itemizing, but decides against itemizing with the intention of giving more to the government would make that person patriotic, while someone who chose to itemize and put things down as deductions that are fictitious would be considered unpatriotic, and the people in between these two extremes are just your normal people who get absolutely no patriotic badge of honor for simply fulfilling their forced duty to file their taxes.
When a child is killed in action, the parent is a "gold star parent." Gold star parents occupy a special place of honor in our society, as they should. We view them as having made a heroic, and patriotic, sacrifice.
Right?
So ... if we view their service to the nation, in surrendering and even losing their children to the national interest, why should we not also view someone's service to the nation, in surrendering and even losing their money in the national interest, as in some basic way patriotic?
That's disgusting.
What you're saying is that being against socialized medicine is being against the country, not against the government promoting it, because obviously the policy is good -- I just don't want to help people!
There's no draft on right now. There's a reason they're lauded.
That is indeed the guiding principle by which the government is supposed to act. The fact that it fails to do so, to whatever degree, is not surprising, but it doesn't affect the argument.
Palin after all is a vehement supporter of the government's actions in Iraq, for instance. She has not suggested that she is opposed to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Nor has she indicated an interest in repudiating the national debt.
If you've ever consulted the little pie chart that comes with your 1040 booklet, you know that the vast majority of federal expenditures fall under those 5 headings (taking "Iraq" for "defense").
Paying taxes to cover the expense of programs voted by our elected representatives is indeed patriotic. It fulfills a duty we owe our country.
I can see why this is hard for someone of Palin's intellect to grasp, but I don't see why so many of you are having trouble with the concept.
I think the entire 20th century was a lesson in proving that the oligarchy could do exactly that, if not just dump their bodies in Siberia.
Evidently not enough to keep the moose's nose out of the trough.
Pinning your argument on a rhetorical turn phrase is just silly. I'll by my father's child for as long as he lives, but he can't compel me to join the Army.... and the government certainly can't compel him to try and force me.
Paying a tax under threat of prosecution is altogether different.
So American troops drafted in WW2 weren't lauded or praiseworthy? The guys who took bullets on Omaha Beach were patriotic and laudable only if they were volunteers?
You're sounding a little despicable here, sorry to say. I hope you will clarify that you don't mean what your words imply.
This is a really, really stupid post.
So supporting a government driving the country into bankruptcy is patriotic regardless of whether that's good? Okay.
It's mandatory. Patriotism isn't the deciding factor, no matter how many times you make a useless crack at her intellect.
Stop acting like an idiot. Being lauded for voluntary service doesn't mean that performing for involuntary service is a bad thing.
Stop with these stupid fallacies.
"I can see why this is hard for someone of Palin's intellect to grasp, but I don't see why so many of you are having trouble with the concept."
Maybe that is because you do not understand the difference between doing something volentarily and doing something under durress of force by virtue of loss of freedom, property and even life in some cases.
When you volenteer to do something good for your country, you are a patriot. When you grudgingly acquiesce to the law of the land by virtue of not wanting to have your property, liberty or even your life taken from you by force, I do not see how that makes you a patriot in heart. It just simply makes you a nuetral party to what is going on around you.
Please head over to your local VFW Hall and tell the Vietnam vets gathered there that they didn't act patriotically when they served as draftees. Because they were just acting under legal compulsion.
If there's anything left after they're through with you, we can continue the conversation about whether "observer" was correct when he posited that a compelled act (like paying taxes) cannot be a patriotic one.
They founded it based on a revolt against taxation without representation. The modern right claims that we don't have to pay taxes to a duly elected government explicitly empowered by the 16A to set the level of taxation.
Big difference.
It's seriously uninformed to think that the military draft exists.
The main post goes way past overheated into just plain weird. Reread Palin's comments and calm down.
programs votedbuying votes from constituencies by our elected representatives is indeed patriotic.Fixed.
T,FTFY.
I for one, would pay my taxes even if they were voluntary. It seems wrong to drive on the roads, send my kids to school, utilize the services of the fire dept. police and military, benefit from federal stewardship of public lands, etc... without paying my fair share.
Supposing it were even possible, would you guys really be comfortable sharing the benefits of government without paying your share?
Nah, not at all. In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard anyone on the left arguing that it's unpatriotic to oppose Democratic health care proposals.
Maybe you and I can agree that opposing Bush's foreign policy is no more unpatriotic than opposing Obama's tax policy. But I don't think everyone will agree on that, which was my point.
If you oppose the war, are you unpatriotic, or do you simply believe that the government made policy decisions that are not in the nation's best interest? I take the latter view. Lots of folks take the former one.
They are patriots because they are patriots, if they actually are patriots, not because they were drafted. Being a patriot is what is in your heart. You might still be a Y if you are forced to do X, but being forced to do X doesn't make you Y. Learn logic. It will help you out in life.
That just makes the sentence even harder to understand. On what possible grounds could you possible assert that we shouldn't have to comply with the explicit terms of our Constitution?
I'm not a big fan of Palin, but she didn't suggest anarchy. It's fine to argue that we need more or less government, but she wasn't suggesting no government. Your 9/11 comment was absurd. Let's deal with the actual arguments, not your carciatures of her positions. That's something I'd expect from jukebox, not you.
David,
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I really long for the days when you posted about soccer. This is really one of the dumber posts I've ever seen on this site . . . .
Apparently are a number of problems with the Palins and their 2006 and 2007 tax returns. She better start worrying about her own tax problems before she comments on tax policy and the patriotism of others.
From A Brief Analysis of Governor Palin's Tax Returns for 2006 and 2007 by Bryan Camp, (Texas Tech University Law School):
Also, from TaxProfBlog:
You have managed to "distract" the conversation - no one is pointing to David Post's idiocy anymore! congrats:-)
Maybe the government shouldn't be doing those things.
Just because they can levy an income tax doesn't mean they should.
"Please head over to your local VFW Hall and tell the Vietnam vets gathered there that they didn't act patriotically when they served as draftees. Because they were just acting under legal compulsion."
It is their actions that make them PATRIOTIC, and if they acted patriotically while in forced service then they are patriots, but if they acted say like John Kerry did, with express intent of going to the war zone to give him credibility when he got back the USA in order to attack the war effort I would say they are unpatriotic.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word "should"? In most cases, it's a normative word used in references to our legitimate obligations. Perhaps you are using it in some other sense?
We don't need the government to provide any service whatsoever except the military. Schools, roads, fire, police, medical, retirement, etc. could all be provided through private enterprise without government intervention. Of course, that would mean that those who act irresponsibly (e.g., not saving properly for retirement) might get the shaft and not have Uncle Sam come in and bail them out whenever something goes wrong.
Modern conservatism now stands for borrow and spend (mostly on waging war).
Can it be endless argued? By lawyers, partisans and others?
Yes, if you wish to spend your time doing that.
Sophists and casuists are a dime a dozen. V. this thread.
It is the entitlement mentality written large that Biden seems to be propounding here. More and more people are entitled to the fruits of our labors. And he is suggesting that it is patriotic for those of us who are paying for his largess to pay for even more of it.
I think that Palin was right to call BS on that.
That's not to say that your views are wrong in any meaningful sense of the word, they just aren't the policies that a democratic government should put in place because they are at odds with the vast majority of the populace.
Even if what the people want is stupid or irrational, they have the right to get it. Libertarian paternalism is just as bad as liberal paternalism or conservative paternalism -- it implies the right of the speaker to tell people what they want over their objections.
"Modern conservatism now stands for borrow and spend (mostly on waging war)."
There you go confusing "republican" and "conservative" again....
In a democracy, The People are entitled (within the limits of the Constitution) to enact policies that are objectively (whatever that means in this context) Bad Ideas(TM).
"Yet people seem to get a glee out of controlling others at the point of a gun. Personally I do not."
You've tried it?
The document dump is here.
To be clear, the situation is this (stipulated for the sake of argument:
The majority of the people, consistent with their democratic prerogative, have set up a system of government built roads, police, prisons, fire departments, etc... You are unable to convince or force them to abandon these policies. You are also unable to avoid benefiting from them since you do, in fact, drive on the roads, enjoy safety from fire, etc..., even if you don't like it. You are also empowered not to pay taxes, despite your benefits from those taxes.
I think I get it. Sarah Palin is unpatriotic because, in her heart, she resents paying the money that supports our troops. I, on the other hand, am a patriot because I gladly pay that money.
What's the knucklehead index for paying for billions in pork every year, then saying it's patriotic to pay for even more waste? What's the knucklehead index for sending billions to Washington so some senator can then send it back home to his favorite project?
It's Republic, not a democracy. And judges long ago interpreted the Constitution in favor of the government.
This is why no flinches when Joe Biden syas the power to "regulate commerce among the states" gives him the power to regulate everything but abortion.
We never voted on that.
When this country was founded, how much of a role did the federal government have in providing any of those services? And I'd say that this country did just fine from then until the early 1900's (when federal income tax was put in place and Congress was given almost limitless power through the commerce clause to get its hooks into virtually any area of society it sees fit).
Oren: Yes, you're correct. And I think today's government madates are against the spirit of the Constitution (anything abridging life, liberty, and the pursuit), and some against the letter (including any and all gun bans -- "shall not be infringed" != "Congress shall [not]").
The text of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to tax incomes, consistent with the desires of the electorate. That's all we need to know for the purposes of this argument.
I have no objection to attempting to elect anti-tax congresspeople, trying to repeal the 16A, or any other such political opposition. I object to notions that powers acquired under a democratically ratified constitution can be labeled illegitimate (as opposed to mere unwise).
As for "desires of the electorate," I tread a fine line between wondering whether voters are malicious or stupid; but the less of my fellow citizens' risk I have to absorb, the better.
With some of her language you could say the same about Palin.
"Shouldn't" because you don't like it or "shouldn't" based on some principle that I'm not understanding?
I don't feel represented by the bailout. I don't know who does.
I will vote accordingly.
There are certainly more moral and patriotic ways to fund government in a free society. Perhaps we should fund the government through hand-outs, freely given by the people instead of having the government confiscate everyone's wealth and then use the apportionment of it as a means of buying votes. Perhaps we could do it by raffles or lotteries or a million other ways that don't involve forcibly separating people from their possessions.
The modern day left is indistinguishable from any other bunch of Marxists in their ability to rationalise the greatest tyrannies in the name of controlling the thoughts, actions and resources of their fellow citizens. There is NOTHING patriotic about threatening your neighbors with imprisonment, or if they resist, death, so that you can take their money and pay off some investment banker's debt or to buy windmills or any of the other things that politicians and bureaucrats do in lieu of honest work.
This is why only the most contemptible and morally reprehensible of any society become part of the governing class of societies as far down the road to socialism as ours. The job requirements preclude having a conscience that is any more highly developed than that possessed by the average felon.
There's a difference between disagreeing with a rule/policy and calling it illegitimate. Both people on the right and left have made that mistake more and more recently.
Vinnie, your current taxes are put in place under a written Constitution with an express delegation of authority to a representative body. Taxation without representation it ain't.
It is to me.
Whatever the framer believed, they certainly believed that if 70% of the population want a policy, they ought to get it and even be able to change the constitution to enact it.
Her reference was to paying taxes generally. Besides, money is fungible; it makes no sense to say that she can limit her taxes only to certain purposes. It all comes out of the same pocket in the end.
Oren: I don't like it because of the principle that, because it brings in as much revenue as it does, government is able to fund programs without feeling the appropriate economic impacts (specifically, it has a bad case of moral hazard). With the addition of wealth redistribution, it also shrinks the economy in order to smooth risks out between welfare recipients and tax payers, which is economically bad and morally wrong. And then there's the use of taxes to modify behavior, which distorts economies in unforeseen ways, though which had been the purpose of even excise taxes when the country began. The government acting as an agent of economic risk management seems to make everything worse.
Does anybody agree with this? I'm sure most of us have been called to jury duty. And I'm sure most of us when called, have served. But I'm also sure that most of us who have served have observed others come up with the most bogus excuses to get out of jury duty. Bogus, when the real reason was that the service would have been inconvenient. Is that not unpatriotic?
Skipping jury duty for its inconvenience, while believing that juries are essential to the proper functioning of the judicial system, would indeed be not patriotic.
Taxes are important. Without taxes, Obama never would have been able to purchase that 3-million dollar planetarium projector that McCain said he purchased.
I’ve been to the planetarium. I’ve seen the Zeppelin and Floyd shows. If Obama’s projector is what I think it is, it blasts some incredible stuff onto the planetarium walls.
McCain lost the stoner vote.
And I disagree with that Holmes quote for the most part, but I agree that police power is effective.
Supposing it were even possible, would you guys really be comfortable sharing the benefits of government without paying your share?
Approximately 30% of federal tax filers pay no income taxes, and so do not pay any share yet receive the benefits from federal government. Presumably most of them manage to sleep at night.
Gee, I wonder what would happen if Joe Biden went around claiming that the poor are unpatriotic because they don't pay taxes, and that government should increase taxes on "working class" families so they can exult in their patriotism?
Can we trade Post for like Tamanaha or Dorf or someone?
Sure.
But we're not talking about surrendering and even losing money in the national interest. We're talking about surrendering and losing money so that despicable oxygen thieves like Biden can buy enough votes to remain in office indefinitely. We're talking about the 75% or so of the federal budget that you could improve the lives of average Americans immensely by zeroing out tomorrow.
There is nothing whatsoever that is patriotic about throwing good money after bad.
D Post: try some breathing exercises. Go for a walk. Take up yoga. But please stop posting this crap until you can govern your passions well enough to make sense.
Gov. Palin was saying that paying higher taxes -- NOT paying taxes, paying higher taxes -- was not patriotic. I agree. I don't think paying taxes is patriotic either, it's a requirement and a duty. It's no more patriotic than paying a fee to renew my passport is patriotic (or renewing a driver's license or whatever).
Also, as others have also noted, anyone can voluntarily make an extra gratuitous payment to the U.S., I once read there's a statute expressly permitting it. If paying higher taxes is so patriotic, why isn't David Post making voluntary payments? Why isn't Sen. Biden? Etc.
I do think that AVOIDING one's tax burden, leaving it to others to bear an undue portion of the burden, is generally(and arguably) unpatriotic, and I might extend that to cover some technically legal tax avoidance schemes. But even assuming arguendo that tax avoidance is unpatriotic does not ipso facto make paying higher taxes patriotic.
If paying higher taxes is patriotic, is imposing higher fines for speeding patriotic? Higher fines for breaking the law, criminally or not, generally? Higher fees for driver's licenses and hunting licenses and professional licenses and (etc.). There may be good reasons for raising those fees, but to claim that paying more money to the government is inherently patriotic is idiotic.
On tax evasion, there's a humorous quote from a "Nero Wolfe" story by Rex Stout (from about 50 years ago) which I happened to reread recently, in which the character notes to a client that given how late it is in the year, he's already in the 90% (!) tax bracket and it's hardly worth the trouble to work for him, he's offered payment in cash -- to which his reply is that he's not a paragon of virtue and might cheat a man or woman or child, but not 140 million of his fellow citizens.
Every time I hear someone say things like this, I wish I could find a time machine and put the speaker to the test.
Supply-siders argue that lowering tax rates increases incentives to work, which generate additional tax revenue and offset revenue losses from lower rates.
Oh, is that what agitating for government money is? I see. Inspiration comes from federal handouts. The banks know it!