I think it goes without argument that all unearned funding, welfare in other words, to scientists, intellectuals, academia and other people that wear turle-necks under suit coats, should be stopped yesterday.
But how about taxing them? Eliminating their welfare would probably balance the budget, but taxing them would fund additional infrastructure, space program, education and social services like health care. That would force them to actually do the things they claim to be striving for, but oops, never quite achieve any of it. Need more money, they say. How about they provide funding for awhile and take a rest from all their hard work. Who knows, in the meantime they may learn to knot a tie. What a feeling of achievement that would be for them. I hope the king of Sweden is listening in.
The U.S. military industrial complex ( Eisenhower's words ) is the biggest "welfare program" on the planet; sensible cuts would balace the budget quite quickly. The grants that intellectuals & scientists get in grants are "dwarfed" by what the defense budget receives.
Speaking of dwarfs, "fair", you're quite the intellectual pygmy indeed.
Now, make that SEVEN people I detest on this board.
FU indeed. Idiot.
-- Modified on 12/22/2010 6:32:43 AM
As Chomsky put it, the main reason why we have such a bloated defense budget is to give cover for the massive investment we make to techology. MIT gets a lot of it's funding from the Pentagon.
So cutting the defense budget would be a cut on a large part of American academia.
I also suspect that taxing a certain profession at a higher level than others would be quickly ruled as Unconstitutional as it would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Making bombs, guns, etc. is the one thing we are stilly really fucking good at. I shudder to think what would happen to our economy should our military industrial complex ever fold.
I am not saying it's right, or moral, or just, just that "it is". With the exception of killing machines, we don't really make anything anymore.
Science and defense spending, even if we concede corruption, waste amd graft, still provide tangible benefits, and are necessary to the general safety and welfare of the country.
What the fuck does religion provide? Except perpetuating centuries old conflicts and a way to contro the masses of course.
Yeah, yeah, I am obviously back on the pipe, because we all know this is never going to happen, just sayin...........
As an ordained minister, I hold "church" in my house once a week, which makes my property tax exempt. When I purchase things -- such as furnishings -- for my church ... I am exempt from sales tax.
I call it the "Church of John Galt: Scientist" and everyone comes and worships at the sign of the dollar.
And we feel that the religious tax exemption is a very good idea as it allows us to pay fewer taxes!
At the end of every sermon; I gather all of the money I collected, throw it up in the air, and whatever deity catches, he can keep.
The rest is for me.
If we tax failure and surrender, the left would either grow a spine or put their money where their mouth is. And I don't mean on the ass cheeks of the right, though that would be accurate.
But how about taxing them? Eliminating their welfare would probably balance the budget, but taxing them would fund additional infrastructure, space program, education and social services like health care. That would force them to actually do the things they claim to be striving for, but oops, never quite achieve any of it. Need more money, they say. How about they provide funding for awhile and take a rest from all their hard work. Who knows, in the meantime they may learn to knot a tie. What a feeling of achievement that would be for them. I hope the king of Sweden is listening in.
ending the unnecessary wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. And, except for S. Korea ( unless someone can enlighten me where else ) massive U.S. troop withdrawls from foreign soil.
Thoughts ?
....unless they provide "Real social services", ...& if churches really did that, give them a tax credit for that specifically, but not for land, property, etc.
The culture of creativity needs to be invested in, but it can be abused some of those receiving support. Like any investment, you need to do your homework in order to get a decent return on your dollar. Unfortunately, most government bureaucrats are lousy at doing so, and/or not properly motivated.
The dynamic between productivity, and those who deem themselves as productive, and creativity and those who deem themselves creators, is well illustrated in most companies who produce a product. When the sales are down, the first thing cut from the budget is research and design. It works in a short-term emergency, but in the long haul, that strategy will lead to it's death.
Perhaps a better strategy would be to, for all governmental department, bureaus, agencies and corporations who practice it, not require budgeted items to be fully spent in order to receive full funding for that item during the next fiscal year. Much is waste in trying to spend budget items to zero so that they will not be lost all together.