captain_slinky: (Default)
[personal profile] 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 :(

Date: 2010-05-06 06:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2010-05-06 06:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2010-05-06 06:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Profile

captain_slinky: (Default)
captain_slinky

July 2018

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2025 04:46 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios