we're not going to let people suffer and die in the street
It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps.
When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets. Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra.
How can we have an honest dialogue about where we've been, where we are, and how we should proceed when this kind of extreme rhetoric/propaganda is so commonplace?
> It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps.
Giving birth can be deadly, but more importantly providing those things helps to reduce the suffering and negative impact on society when people have children, planned or not.
> When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets.
Taxes aren't raised for any of those things in particular. They are raised increase gov't revenue and that revenue may or may not be allocated to programs to tackle those issues.
> Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra.
The TV show you refer to didn't receive hundreds of millions of dollars. Rather, the Dept. of Agriculture runs a program at a cost of $200 million, part of which went to that show. Note that the heritage foundation (yuck) link you posted makes no mention of the actual amount of money allocated to that TV show and what it was actually for.
As for Solyndra, they received a loan of $535 million from the Dept. of Energy, of which the govt can recoup up to 19% of $142.8 million of that loan (the rest is a loss). To claims billions in losses, you will have to prove that other companies that took loans under that DoE program have all failed and will not repay any part of their loans.
There is waste in gov't spending, for sure, but specifics are needed if we are going be even close to accurate about what is a loss and what is a gain, both in the short and long term.
If the whole contraceptive/abortion debate were about saving lives, then I wouldn't even be arguing with you... but it's not is it?
but more importantly providing those things helps to reduce the suffering and negative impact on society when people have children, planned or not.
Okay, now you're a lot more in line with the truth -- the masterminds in charge feel they have license to prevent "negative impact on society". Doesn't that scare you? The people in charge are no better than you or I... in fact I'd say they're mostly worse. They're mostly power hungry and good enough liars to get elected.
Taxes aren't raised for any of those things in particular.
I've heard both Biden and Obama use those EXACT reasons for why we need to raise revenues/taxes.
makes no mention of the actual amount of money allocated to that TV show and what it was actually for.
You're going to split hairs and worry about exactly how much of our tax dollars were spent on an Indian reality show? Who cares? Those people are abusing their trust to reduce "negative impact on society" and should be booted.
As for Solyndra
I didn't say Solyndra was the only loss. Once again, though, you're splitting hairs on how many million it was when the real answer should have been: No, we don't use BORROWED money to fund corporations for industries that are pet projects.
If you doubt that billions have been wasted, you haven't been paying attention. You must not have noticed TARP, large portions of which went to save the money and jobs of wealthy bankers. yay.
> If the whole contraceptive/abortion debate were about saving lives, then I wouldn't even be arguing with you... but it's not is it?
I know this is getting a bit off topic from what you originally were talking about, but abortion and contraception absolutely are about saving lives just as much as giving people control over there lives. In particular, when abortion is not available, people will seek out services from those who know nothing about actually performing an abortion or will attempt to self induce an abortion, which can be devastating in an environment where information is not available.
> Okay, now you're a lot more in line with the truth -- the masterminds in charge feel they have license to prevent "negative impact on society". Doesn't that scare you? The people in charge are no better than you or I... in fact I'd say they're mostly worse. They're mostly power hungry and good enough liars to get elected.
The purpose of organizing via a government in the first place is to prevent negative impact on society, so it really comes down to specifics. Providing health care access is a net gain for everybody and can be done reasonably, but policies like wars of aggression and police militarization are a huge drain on our society and others around the world. Again, it comes down to specifics.
> I've heard both Biden and Obama use those EXACT reasons for why we need to raise revenues/taxes.
They would like to use tax revenue increases to be spent on domestic social programs, but they really can't say it will be used that way, it will all come down to actually passing some kind of legislation to raise revenue and then legislation to spend it. In the current political climate in the US, that's a tall order.
> You're going to split hairs and worry about exactly how much of our tax dollars were spent on an Indian reality show? Who cares? Those people are abusing their trust to reduce "negative impact on society" and should be booted.
I think it matters because its not really clear if the Dept. of Agriculture's program is useful without specific information and details about it.
> I didn't say Solyndra was the only loss. Once again, though, you're splitting hairs on how many million it was when the real answer should have been: No, we don't use BORROWED money to fund corporations for industries that are pet projects.
Solyndra was supposed to be making an improved form of photo volatic solar panels for use in residential construction. While Solyndra was a bust, government spending to advance practical applications of alternative energy technology is definitely a good idea, as we will require better technology of that kind in the future as fossil fuel extraction gets more expensive. To that end, I wouldn't call this a pet project.
Also, the money was a loan that was to be repaid. The bankruptcy restructuring going on now means that the loan originator (the Dept. of Energy) will lose out on some amount of that loan, but the DoE felt is was worth the risk.
As for using tax money (borrowed or not) to spend on corporations through loan or subsidy programs, whether or not it is a waste really depends on the specifics of what that spending seeks to accomplish and what actual results occur. Funding alternative energy research has a strong value, even if it means that sometimes the programs will lose out. Also, the DoE's loan program is not a major source of financial pressure on gov't revenues: military spending and the increasing cost of medicare/medicaid due to lack of health care reform are the two biggest pressures right now.
> If you doubt that billions have been wasted, you haven't been paying attention. You must not have noticed TARP, large portions of which went to save the money and jobs of wealthy bankers. yay.
While I don't agree with the TARP program, billions were not wasted, as the vast majority of TARP funds have been completely repaid[1]:
As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program.
It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps.
When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets. Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra.
How can we have an honest dialogue about where we've been, where we are, and how we should proceed when this kind of extreme rhetoric/propaganda is so commonplace?
[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/top-10-examples-of-waste...