Why Tax Cuts No Longer Work

Susan Foster - Ma'am, in my opinion we are a Constitutional Republic. In our form of government the States have the power to administer education. I don't see any statistical evidence that the education system has improved with the Federal government being in charge of policy. When I went to school we were taught Latin and Greek. Look at issues today in college. Students are having to take remedial english and grammar courses.// as for the other items you mentioned- are they new? Did we allow the poor to simply die off or starve before the Dept of Education was developed? No, the State and People of the States developed solutions. I believe the States are the factories to improve the life of citizens. The Federal Government has 18 enumerated powers and should focus on them and allow the States to fulfill their proper roles.

LTC (Join to see) - I understand your argument, but I know in my state, they don't do a very good job of "administering education." And if not for money from the federal gov't, it would be worse. It's not that they aren't "allowed to fulfill their proper role", it's that people don't want to pay another dime in taxes to educate kids. (I have actually heard people say, "it was good enough for me--it should be good enough for them." Without a standard, we could really have a much worse educated populace in a couple of generations. I think it's pretty bad now (I agree with you on english/grammar, and I've noticed my nieces and nephews don't know geography). As far as the poor, what solution would get kids to school to learn (in the states) with breakfast and lunch? I'm not arguing, and I think it could be a whole lot better, but I am looking for what you would consider good alternatives to Head Start and school breakfast/lunches.

Susan Foster - Ma'am, I am a Libertarian so I would probably make your head explode. I don't see how the poor are my problem. Now that at first hearing sounds harsh. But why are they poor. Are they poor like in India or poor in America with a house, cars, smart phones, ect. The poor argument is a political weapon and if I were ever in politics I'd tackle the problem of poverty. If you look up this issue and cost you will see since LBJ started his social program that we, taxpayers, have spent 18 Trillion on poverty programs since the 60s. Guess what. We still have poverty. Look at means tested social programs in the budget today. There are 81 Federally mandated programs with a 900 Billion price tag. That is an annual outlay. So has America gotten any better at reducing poverty at the Federal level? // Whats my opinion. Gardening. I am a fan of community gardens, hydra and aquaponics. We have an over abundance of food in America. But like ruthless rulers in Africa, our politicians have learned to use food as a weapon. So- long winded there but I'd tackle the roots of poverty first to address your question. If not, political leader will continue to use the poor as leverage to get whatever policy or control they want over the People.

LTC (Join to see) - I don't think you would make my head explode, as I believe I've heard most everything! LOL. Actually, not liking the poor sounds R, not L, but I know L's also don't believe much in state welfare. I am pretty moderate and can't quite figure out what I am (I'd say fiscally conservative and socially liberal). But I do believe poor people are my problem too because I believe we are all connected. I do believe there are ills you work on that you will never cure. For example, we shouldn't stop all cancer research just because we haven't cured it. I totally agree with you that we tackle it the wrong way and there are lots of things we could do that we aren't doing (and perhaps things we do that we should not). But if we don't care about it (or them), then there's no hope of solving it. You make a very good point that we have too much food in America, yet people go hungry. On the other hand, people have to eat daily, and it's difficult to have them put that on hold while we figure out the roots of poverty. I have some friends in WVA and the wife works in the lunchroom at school. This is a poor county (but not the poorest) and 93% of these children (no minorities, by the way), get free lunches and breakfast at school. She says this is the only hot meal many of them get. They ignore the federal rules that says you cannot pack food for them to take home when they have leftovers on Friday, because otherwise some of these children probably will be hungry that weekend. You probably would not get these people to move from that county no matter what kind of job you offered them. This is a very interesting subject and I agree we have to tackle those roots. One way is probably education (which we agree isn't being done as well as the money we spend would indicate) and training. Thank you for your thoughtful discussion.

SSG (Join to see) - I use more than one search engine, and more than one source to inform. I have found other wise I get upset. I think if you close yourself off to other viewpoints (or are manipulated as is the case here), you can never really grow or make informed decisions. Oh well, my 2 cents...

LT Brad McInnis - That is why I go to multiple websites and find the common denominator between them to find the commonality and find a way to look past some/most (METT-TC) bias. Some times (most of the time right now for some reason) though I need to take a step back and just do what I've been train to do and observe from afar and wait a few days to a week or a few months for the facts to come forward. I find myself more time than forced to take a position of neutrality so as to get a better understanding on what is going on instead of jumping to conclusions (might have to do with this whole thing of bias reporting this past year).

If you believe that "trickle down" economics work, then do some more research on Kansas tax cut for the rich and let me know how that turned out.

Cpl Tou Lee Yang - You might add Oklahoma to the failed "trickle down" effect. Recent articles show an increase in dissatisfaction even among staunch republicans. The state is losing revenue because of tax cuts to corporations. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/history-of-tax-cuts-catches-up-to-oklahoma-as-state/article_ec192755-9cd7-5067-a61c-79f25ed382d4.html

Cpl Tou Lee Yang -
Government should do what it is supposed to do... that which no private individual, non-governmental charity, or private enterprise can do.

Government should not do what is not supposed to do... 1)Protect private individual's and private enterprise from their own decisions. 2) Level the playing field for advantages gained by legal, moral, and ethical means. 3) Make sure there is a chicken in every pot, a TV in every living room, a phone in every ear. 4) Concern itself with the results of the pursuit of private individual's happiness, unless that happiness deprives someone else of there rights.

P.S. Something that is provided by taking from someone else may be a benefit but it is not a right. A right requires no more from another than non-interference. example - you have a right to the fruits of your own labor, I do not have a right to the fruits of your labor.

Maj John Bell - Agree for the most part with exception to #2. Not sure what you're saying. An example(s) might help.

CWO3 (Join to see) - I do not believe the government should be involved in any social welfare programs: assistance to the poor, Medicare, social security etc. etc. etc. nor should businesses get government assistance (if a business get a government check it should be solely based on fair market value for goods or services. The only time government should get involved is to use its police authority to make sure that laws are followed. Fraud by the non-Government charities and professional associations (NGO's) is far easier to track than fraud by social welfare recipients.

I believe the government is treading on the turf that belongs to NGO's. We have a system where the powers that be can offer assistance to create a permanent welfare class using assistance and the tax code as a way to secure votes and perpetuate their hold on power. For the most part the democrats do it with social welfare and the Republicans do it with corporate welfare. But there is certainly rustling by either side In both cases I consider it morally reprehensible for private individuals or corporate entities to receive government assistance. If they stand or fall, non-government entities should make sure they are worthy of assistance.

Maj John Bell - We probably would be better off now without the system you refer to. It has morphed from it's original intent to what it now is. What's the solution?