Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Some of them they mention, such as the EITC and the child & dependent care tax credit are only allowable at lower income levels though, so I can more easily see those being defined as social programs. Then again, if a child care tax credit allows a woman to work instead of relying on welfare, then it is still a long term benefit to the government.

Why should we allow the government to benefit from our efforts? If it doesn't benefit the people, it should not exist in government.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Why should we allow the government to benefit from our efforts? If it doesn't benefit the people, it should not exist in government.

Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, so I don't see a difference, frankly. However, I feel confident and comfortable with interchanging the word government with the word people in the sentence I wrote.

I honestly cannot think of a single instance offhand where any governmental agency or policy does not benefit the people. Is there a specific program or something in existence now that doesn't benefit the people? It seems like it would be really easy to make spending cuts if there were programs to cut that had no benefit. The reason people get wary of spending cuts is because they hurt people, usually the people who are already struggling.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

People jump on that "47% of the people don't pay federal income tax" and make assumptions.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think the 47% issue is perhaps a different problem that just reducing it to makers and takers, which I know a lot of folks want to do.

And I think the bottom line of using the 47%/half of the people mantra is to create an us-vs-them dynamic.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I'd also like to add that most of these "social programs" for the middle and upper class are actually designed to benefit the government in the long run in terms of spurring economic growth and generating higher tax revenues. It's very beneficial for the government to get people owning homes and paying property taxes as well as getting educations and earning higher taxable income than just minimum wage.

I was going to ask if it's the government that benefit or if it's the country and the country's economy that benefit, but others have raised a similar theme in the last few posts.

Not saying government can't be wasteful (or even self-interested), but when that's the case, then as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."