>>>>>>>>Besides, they'd squander it right away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, besides tax cuts, it doesn't happen often. But the way the proposition was structured it presupposed all money belongs to the state and the individual only has what the state lets him have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I forgot a smiley there... I went under the assumption that the government of the people for the people has already decided how much tax to take, and that the use of that money was the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the assumption I question. ( oddly reminiscent of an older idea that all power rests with the king and the people only have such rights as he deigns to give them.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's the "everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed" vs "everything is allowed unless explicitly forbidden" type of dichotomy. Either can't really work in a country with common law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And "squandering" it would mean spending it on goods and services they personally give value to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ergo beer, sports and porn,
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm as much of a snob and intellectual elitist as the next guy, but I find it often laughable as the champions of the common man and the workers of the world have such disdain for the 'Joe Sixpacks' that they need to protect from the evil bosses and exploiters. Thomas Sowell has identified it quite acurately in The Vision of the Annointed
>>>>>
>>>>>The liberal elites would not spend their money on beer sports and porn but the ignorant peasants they represent would so it is up to the 'annointed' to take the money and spend it wisely for their poor simple charges.
>>>>
>>>>Can you even begin though to comprehend how many old homeless and destitute people there would be if people had been trusted over the last 60 or so years to take care of their own retirement entirely without the aid of government pensions and company pensions? It would be crippling. In general, people are simply not good at it. The con artists would be having a field day. Don't you ever wonder why TV is so full of such popular crap? Do you believe it's because people, on average, are so darned intelligent and discerning?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A very cynical view of the individual by people who really believe they themselves are so much better.
>>>
>>>Hey, I'm not talking about abolishing social security <s> I'm even pretty much in line with Hillary on health care.
>>>
>>>I am talking more about the attitude reflected in Dragans comment ( which I realize was jocular ) that the lumpen would spend a tax cut on beer, sports and porn, reflecting those things they valued.
>>>
>>>I think a lot of modern "progressive" thought is that there are "leaders" who "know best" what people need and for whom the proles should vote so they can be protected from their bad decisions by their betters. I believe this attitude is quite condescending and shows a limited understanding of life in "flyover" America. I don't like it when Jerry Falwell tells me what to do with my leisure time or my genitals and I don't like it when the National Endowment for the Arts wants to spend my money to subsidize self-indulgent performance art. I'm perfectly capable of subsidizing those things I value and ignoring those things I don't with guidance from self-appointed watchdogs.
>>>
>>>Just your normal libertarian rant <bg>
>>
>>What you say still implies that somebody somewhere has to draw a line between what 'proles' should be allowed to do for themselves and what the "leaders" should do. That line is going to be contentious anyway. You see the line in one place, others see it elsewhere, but wherever that line is drawn, it is still being drawn by those 'leaders who know best' where it should be drawn.
>>
>>In sum, nothing changes but the fact that now you are that 'leader' who decides where to draw the line.
>>
>>Believe me, I don't like paying taxes either, and I believe ours are higher than yours, but overall, there is no way I could, on my own, ensure that all the things I think are worthwhile get the money they need.
>
>I must have said it badly because I was trying to say I think those who propose big government solutions think of themselves as smarter and better people than the poor schlubs they are trying to help and improve. They feel justified in making spending decisions for them as they are sure those not annointed with their vision could not do it so cleverly or with so much insight into the direction the society should seek.
>
>I find it smug and demonstrably wrong.

I think I understood what you were saying. What I'm trying to point out is that you do approve of some government spending and you don't approve of other government spending. What that means to me is that if you were running things, you would be only spending money on those things of which you approve and not on other things. Therefore, all you are doing is drawing the line over which government shouldn't step, in a different place than the current government is drawing it.

I'm not saying for a moment that you might not do a better job of it spending the proles' tax money, but I'm just pointing out that one way or another, somebody in government makes those decisions - whether it's you, or somebody else doesn't really change the dynamic, only how the money is defrayed.

You've said you aren't against government pensions, for example. Ok then, now you're running the country. That money has to come from the 'proles'. Aren't you then deciding for them how their money should be spent/invested? My point is that somebody is going to make those decisions (for the 'proles'). Whether or not you agree with those decisions is a different argument altogether.

As for me, I disagree that most people really understand enough about the economic system to be able to wisely handle their own money and still be able to live decently in retirement. Maybe that makes me smug, but the fact is, I don't understand the ways of money any better than most other people, and I base my beliefs on my own lack.