Serious question, not just Snark

[captain_slinky]

...Because I can't write this in a way where it doesn't come out as "I think I'm so much more clever than those who have different views than me", which usually frightens away those who could answer such questions. So please take this seriously because I really *do* want to know...

This is directed at "Tea Party", "Conservative" and even a few "Libertarian" folks I know (but not all of them).

Specifically, the ones with the Yellow "Support Our Troops" Ribbons and "I Support Our Local Police/Firefighters" bumper stickers.

The money for SUPPORTING our Troops, Police and Firefighters comes from TAXES.

So every time you complain about raising taxes, you're complaining about having to support our Troops. Doesn't it boil down to a simple question of WANTING to pay them more or NOT wanting to pay them more? Where would you have the money for supporting our Troops come from without raising taxes? And don't say something akin to "Cutting The Fat" - you would have to give me an actual example of something you could cut that would give us enough money to cover what you think our Troops are worth.

If you like having a Military, Police Force, Firefighters, roads, libraries, mail, parks, public beaches and a gazillion other things you NEED Taxes, don't you?

As far as I have observed, the people with the Yellow "Support Our Troops" ribbons on their cars are the ones most likely to say that we pay too much in Taxes. It's as contradictory as the Pro-Lifers who support The Death Penalty :(

Comments

[das-prompt.livejournal.com]

There was a really good poll on a related concept recently:

http://washingtonindependent.com/81684/the-futility-of-budget-cuts

The jist of it: people want to cut spending on stuff we don't spend much on in the first place. I actually had an argument with someone who was convinced that a giant weight on our economy was the tax free status of American Indians, but she would never consider cutting defense budgets. Zero sense of proportion or the reality of the situation.

[captain-slinky.livejournal.com]

I saw that poll reposted by Mark Evanier a month-r-so back, it was kind of the seed for this thought that's been festering in my head for so long.

[sasjhwa.livejournal.com]

The logic flaw you have is that you assume that "I support our troops" is intended to mean financially, which it isn't. Those stickers mean that a person is emotionally behind our troops or support our troops, either through moral support or belief in the current mission they are on. It has nothing to do with money.

And I agree that our tax problem has a lot to do with increasing the size of government on credit while cutting taxes at the same time. We want the government to do everything for us while not taking any of our money to do it. We can't have it both ways. I would rather see government expenses cut drastically while at the same time establishing a fair and adequate tax system that doesn't require a professional to understand. I don't know if the flat tax would work or not but it is something I intend to look into.

How could you get pay raises to the military? I'm not sure if they are needed, although after war care certainly is. Cut the number of troops. We still occupy countries from a war we won 65 years ago. We could pull our troops out of Germany, Japan, and half the Pacific as well as Korea and then the military budget could go down significantly. The military we would then have could be better trained and focused while increasing pay. Instead of being a thorn in the sides of countries around the world and increasing the "pissed off at us factor" they could be ready to respond to threats that might happen.

Of course if you are going to cut the US military there needs to be jobs for them to do in the private sector when they get home. That requires a lot of work on the economy in order to succeed.

You also need a foreign policy that has nothing to do with preemptive warfare, nation building, or maintaining a military empire across the globe.

The best way to support the troops IMO is to bring them home and get them out of harm's way. Failing that, a change in policy that sends them into harm's way only when there is a plan for getting them out would be helpful. This would require historians to advise the president. "You want to go to war in Afghanistan? Here is a list of all the other countries (and one super power with much closer lines of support) who tried and failed. You must learn the lesson of history or you will be added to the list when next I teach US history at my university."

I have a problem with the support our troops stickers. First, they are in some respect meaningless. They sometimes make me think they mean "I thought about the army once" or "I want to look patriotic." Unless the person is doing something to ACTIVELY support our troops in some way it doesn't mean much to me.

I also sometimes think it means "I support the current mission of our troops" which then makes me believe that I personally do not support our troops because I believe they are almost universally on missions that cause greater harm to our country than help.

I have been told that supporting the troops has nothing to do with their mission because they didn't choose to go to war. In fact the fault lies with the government. So I should support the troops even if I don't like the politicians who sent them overseas. My flaw with that is that, while they do a terribly difficult job that I could never do, and that in some instances may be necessary, many of them volunteered knowing that there were two wars going on as well as the occupation of other countries. They chose to be a part of that.

So I am accused of being unpatriotic because I don't support the troops. Somehow I must fall into goose step with the desire for universal support of the military or I am less of an American, in spite of my belief that America would be far better off with a humble foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy over empire.

I am pro-choice. My choice is to be pro-life. I don't know that I have the moral authority to make that decision for other people. I am strongly against the death penalty.

[captain-slinky.livejournal.com]

So... some people don't want to support our troops financially, they just want to support our troops killing people we disagree with? Isn't that kind of... evil?

Parts of this post were birthed by the 90% of my Right-Wing and Tea-Party Friends who complained about our Military getting their smallest pay raise since 1973 this year. They don't want to pay more taxes but they DO want more money. It just... it boggles my mind!

[agelesseuridice.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't really classify myself as a tea party, or republican or libertarian, although that one comes closest of the three, for me the thing about taxes is they are getting spent on the wrong things.
Yes I like the military and cops and parks and teachers and "they" know I like these things. So they start budget cuts with the those folks first. They know I'll pony up 8 more cents for a soda if it means there will be a fireman kicking in my door when the hall is full of smoke.
My problem is all the perks the taxes go for. Do civil servants really need government paid for cars? Cars that come with service plans and tires and gas and in some cases paid mileage? Why didn't they cut the state fleet in half? oh because I'd wouldn't pay 3 cents more for my snickers if they said that was were they were cutting back on.
Does our county's senators, congressmen, our state congress and town hall politicians and a good number of their staff really need free lunch every day? Not when there are kids in this country who no longer get free milk once a day.
Does the agriculture department really need to spend millions to study cow farts? If there is a practical application for this then let industry pay for it, they own the freaking ranches anyway.

It's not the taxes I mind. It's not paying the military, cops, and teachers I mind. Its the insane amount of money that is spent for things that don't really make sense that I resent.

[captain-slinky.livejournal.com]

Well sure there will be things that each individual person resents us spending money on... a guy who doesn't have a car may not want us to spend on roads, an illiterate person doesn't want to spend on libraries, and I personally am repulsed by the fact that so much of my tax money goes towards paying people who are totally okay with killing somebody as long as they get paid enough.

The Government didn't all get together one day and say "Man, wouldn't it be friggin' sweet if we all got free cars? And free lunches? Yeah, awesome! OOH! And let's make sure that the kids don't get milk any more! SWEEEEEEET!" Somebody, somewhere made a passionate enough argument to convince A LOT of people that we really *do* need to spend a few more million dollars on studying cow farts. And if we didn't do it NOW, then some day down the line when it really matters The Public would be all up-in-arms about "This information was brought to our attention way back then, WHY DIDN'T ANYONE THINK TO STUDY THE COW FARTS BACK THEN?!?!?!"

Government isn't in the business of trying to foolishly spend our money; they are in the business of keeping their jobs.

[das-prompt.livejournal.com]

There will always be cases where people in government who are looking out for their best interests, and cases of waste or fraud. There's certainly opportunity to find our tax dollars being wasted and to find solutions to correct it. That's the case with the government, any place I've ever worked, and in my personal household.

Then there are people who take this to the next level, and are convinced that our entire government at all levels is a giant case of the worst of this run rampant, and the only solution is to strip government all the way down. And then we'll all bask in the tax-free glory of humanity without the tyranny of government intervention, or something. I suggest these people put down their teabags and move to Somalia where they can finally be free.

But I think there's another point that gets lost here. Leaving aside crazy conspiracy theories and recognizing that we live in an imperfect system, we live in a pretty solid democracy. These same people who rant against tyranny and proudly proclaim their undying patriotism seem to forget how democracy works. As an unrelated but I think the clearest example, a big issue with the healthcare reform was how to handle the issue of abortion. An underlying point some were trying to make was, "It might be legal, but I don't want *my* money funding that." But you know what, as a country we've determined this is a legal procedure. Maybe that law will change someday; it has before. There have been some wars I didn't want my taxes funding, but that's not how democracy works.

This is what pisses me off the most about the Tea Party folks. How the government spends our money is a valid topic for debate. There are points to be made on all sides. But here's the funny thing about democracy: it's pretty awesome as a whole, but on a number of individual issues, it's going to suck for about half of us. And when you try to equate being on the losing side of an election or political issue with being under fascist rule, you not only insult the real historic victims of truly evil governments, but you also insult the idea of democracy itself. Your credibility crumbles to nothing.

Jesus, you got me on a roll now. This whole state right vs federal rights argument (Tenthers) some people want to push is disingenuous bullshit. Again, I recognize that certain aspects of government and legislation work better on a local scale, while others work better on a national scale, and intelligent people can disagree on where that line is drawn. What doesn't make sense is how something would be considered tyranny if adopted as a nation, but acceptable (at least in theory) if done at the state level. Just like the people who love yellow ribbons but hate their taxes, these people cover themselves in American flags and rant about their love of this country, but don't seem to have much interest in actually participating in being one. How many of these Tenthers are flying their state flag instead of the national one? Probably just the Southern ones. I think I answered my own question.

[captain-slinky.livejournal.com]

I think that's it... those who are crying 'Fascism' are just ruining it for real fascism... but weren't it The Hippies on The Left that started with all that? And when all is said and done, The Hippies did a pretty good job of getting heard...

[das-prompt.livejournal.com]

Dude, I've been wrestling with myself over something like this for a while. You get to be the lucky guy to hear it.

Basically it boils down to this: The demonization of our political foes in this country has gotten way out of hand, and it's distracting us from real debates about very important topics. And this would be way easier to solve if Republicans weren't actually so fucking evil.

I say that in jest, of course. Kinda. And going completely against what should be my point, I'm going to go right out in front and blame George W. Bush.

Let me try to civilly dance around my harsher opinions here to make an overall point. Many of the criticisms I hear about Obama seem to resemble Bizaro-World criticisms of GWB, and have devolved into "You said that about my guy, I'll say it about your guy" arguments that stop making any sense. Bush came in under a very close and disputed election, and some people (right or wrong) considered him to be an illegitimate president. So hey, why not find a way to dispute Obama's legitimacy too? But this election wasn't close, there were no recounts, it was a landslide, so then we have to reach to find something else. Enter the Birthers with their repeatedly debunked claims of foreign birth. Then Bush pushed the limits of surveillance, due process, and the use of torture. And (right or wrong) has been accused of acting in a manner that was unconstitutional and possibly rising to the levels of war crimes. So now the other side gets their turn, accusing Obama of tyranny, fascism, and undermining the very principles of our Constitution, by enacting health care reform?

I'm torn. On one hand, I truly believe that most on the other side of the political spectrum are good folks who want the best, and just might disagree with me on how that is going to work. And I think that raising the level of civility towards people who disagree is key. But then I see some of the stuff on the other side and I start to question where the line is drawn. And I know they're seeing that on my side too.

So what's the answer, then? What's the alternative to toning it down, even if we're sure we're right? Do we get to a point where we automatically question the very legitimacy of anyone on the other side who wins an election? Do we declare every piece of legislation proposed by the other side as unconstitutional and designed to undermine my freedom?

I need a drink.

[captain-slinky.livejournal.com]

It seems as if maybe The Democrats tried that whole civility thing, and The Republicans used it to "prove" how weak the Left is. They tried to reach a compromise, bent over backwards trying to accommodate the demands of The Right, and what they got in return was the Congressional equivalent of a High School Jock saying "Thanks for helping me pass Algebra, FAGOT! Hey everybody, did you know that The Democrats are GAY?"

Wouldn't it be nice if Bipartisanship and cooperation weren't seen as weakness?

[zachary-cole.livejournal.com]

I'm sure things are different on a state-to-state level, but in mine (Maine) legislators and staff at the State House do not receive a free lunch.

[zachary-cole.livejournal.com]

One other thing-- I don't really think the "Tea Partiers" resent paying taxes in the same manner that you do, agelesseuridice. Almost all the issues you raised are taxes doled out by state legislators. However, since TPs have spent so much time railing against Washington, aren't they more concerned with government spending? If that isn't the case, are they instead telling the federal government to *control* state spending?