[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Like I said, I'm not an expert on this subject, but isn't part of Obama's plan to give more tax cuts? I understand he wants to stop giving tax cuts to the wealthy, but from reading what you wrote, they have "accumulated so much wealth" it doesn't matter. If he intends to stop giving tax cuts to the wealthy and instead give them to the middle and lower classes, that seems like a good plan, according to what you wrote.

No, I didn't write that. I apologize if my statement was confusing. I wrote that the tariff's indirectly increase the cost of goods and services, but that is an increase based on consumption, and not earnings. You control how much or little you are indirctly taxed via your spending habits. An income tax doesn't care how much you spend, it taxes you because you are lucky enough to have a job.

You miscontrue the main point of my argument: The reason why they are wealthy is BECAUSE they are not taxed. You can't then tax them on multiple levels and then expect the wealth to continue to grow when the wealth you are taxing is based on the lack of taxes. Its like baking a cake, and then saying "Hey, this is a good cake! Its so good it doesn't even need the flour or sugar! Lets remove them and bake it again!" Your result will be completely different, and highly unappetizing.

I personally don't mind paying taxes, if I know they're being used for things I care about. Like gas tax; my state recently raised it, but I really don't care since I hate driving on bad roads, and I know that's what the money is being used for.

But you don't know whether or not its being used properly. California and New York have the highest taxes in the nation, and they both have the highest debt as well. Taxes and waste tend to go hand in hand. Muadvice would be to follow the money of spending programs you believe in, and see how it is being used. Public spending isn't always corrupt, but it tends to breed corruption because few people are paying attention.

I also know that Obama voted NO towards a bill to reduce federal spending, but looking into that bill, there are a couple of things that they wanted to reduce spending on that I really hated to see there, and am glad he voted No towards that. One of the things they wanted to reduce was Student Loans. Any time someone tries to reduce money put towards education, I'm going to be against that. That is a short term solution for a problem.

The issue of public supplements for education is a tricky one. In the short term, it does help students pay for their education, but in the long term I believe it has drastically driven up the cost of education to the point that supplementation has become a necessity for middle class students, and not just to help the poor.

So my argument is that it has far surpassed its intent. But the real problem is that it is what it is, and even if I don't like how we have perverted the economics of education, how do we fix it without hurting thousands of eager students? That I can't tell you. We're kind of stuck in a catch 22.

I am not against all public funding, but my arguments fall in line with those detailed in the movie DAVE, where the government was spending millions to make people feel better about cars they already bought. It isn't the governments job to supplement industry, unless it is to prevent a collapse or in the case of airlines allow commerce to continue. I also tend to diagree with spending that wants to try and replace functions that a family or society should fill.

But to show you my feelings on public funding, I am a big proponent of federal and local fudning for asylums, for the insane and destitute. The insane can get treatment, and the destitute/homeless can get job and life training and help with drug dependence. In any case, its better than watching them freeze to death on a sewer grate.

EDIT: Another quick edit, Jon McCain voted yes on that same bill, which is another reason I will never vote for him. Anyone who considers cutting that much money towards Education is not going to have my vote.

Thats an understandable reaction, as I and conflicted on this issue, but I'd love to hear McCain's reasoning behind it as he tends to be very thoughtful about his decisions on controversial votes, much like his initial no vote for the Bush tax cuts where he voted no symbolicly because they bill didn't include spending cuts.