Taxes pay for the services we all enjoy and need. They are a necessary evil. Lower taxes means that the nation either has to cut services or go into debt. Americans seem perfectly happy to not have socialized healthcare and to drive on shitty roads. I like nice roads, nice schools, etc.
The federalism argument was made above. Top-down control simply doesn't work.
If FEMA showed up in NewOrleans during Katrina and saved people right away there's value in that.
They did (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/2315076):
Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.
Part of having a "strong" central government and high taxes is the misguided expectation that the "strong" central government is capable of being a proactive first responder, when the reality is that the best it can ever do in situations such as Katrina is be a secondary responder and react to what's needed. The strong central government we have did not respond the way you'd expect, and instead of recognizing the reality of the situation, you think it has to do with low taxes and low value for the dollar?
Ikea or Walmart furniture is priced right but so is the quality.
I can't speak to Ikea (although the bookcases I have from them have been excellent), but Wal-Mart offers good products at low prices. This perception makes no sense, because they're not selling anything special - just the same products you can get in other places at a lower price.
If anything, Wal-Mart, Target, et al should be a model of efficiency regarding how a government should work in terms of cost/benefit. There's no reason why, for instance, federal workers should be paid so much more than their private counterparts (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm).
I don't mind paying more to have quality.
More reason to push for more localized control - if you want to pay more, go someplace with like-minded people.
More taxes paid out should translate into better quality government services.
Duh.
Whether it's services we personally use every day (public roads) or emergency services (police, fire) or services that are not used personally (National Defense, trade negotiations). I would rather pay more to ensure better quality then pay less and put up with crap.
Instead, we pay more and put up with crap. And then the answer from the powers that be is that we're not paying enough, and that's why we have crap. It doesn't occur to them that the crap may be from the structure, not the available money.
Of course by no means is this any guarantee of quality. There isn't a direct correlating relationship. Just as you can pay a lot of money for a Lexus that rolls over and doesn't stop, you can pay a scant fraction for a 1988 Dodge Diplomat that is totally awesome.
With this line, you completely nuked the point of this post. I hope you noticed that.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
1 of 2
Date: 18/4/10 21:03 (UTC)The federalism argument was made above. Top-down control simply doesn't work.
If FEMA showed up in NewOrleans during Katrina and saved people right away there's value in that.
They did (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/2315076):
Part of having a "strong" central government and high taxes is the misguided expectation that the "strong" central government is capable of being a proactive first responder, when the reality is that the best it can ever do in situations such as Katrina is be a secondary responder and react to what's needed. The strong central government we have did not respond the way you'd expect, and instead of recognizing the reality of the situation, you think it has to do with low taxes and low value for the dollar?
Ikea or Walmart furniture is priced right but so is the quality.
I can't speak to Ikea (although the bookcases I have from them have been excellent), but Wal-Mart offers good products at low prices. This perception makes no sense, because they're not selling anything special - just the same products you can get in other places at a lower price.
If anything, Wal-Mart, Target, et al should be a model of efficiency regarding how a government should work in terms of cost/benefit. There's no reason why, for instance, federal workers should be paid so much more than their private counterparts (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm).
I don't mind paying more to have quality.
More reason to push for more localized control - if you want to pay more, go someplace with like-minded people.
More taxes paid out should translate into better quality government services.
Duh.
Whether it's services we personally use every day (public roads) or emergency services (police, fire) or services that are not used personally (National Defense, trade negotiations). I would rather pay more to ensure better quality then pay less and put up with crap.
Instead, we pay more and put up with crap. And then the answer from the powers that be is that we're not paying enough, and that's why we have crap. It doesn't occur to them that the crap may be from the structure, not the available money.
Of course by no means is this any guarantee of quality. There isn't a direct correlating relationship. Just as you can pay a lot of money for a Lexus that rolls over and doesn't stop, you can pay a scant fraction for a 1988 Dodge Diplomat that is totally awesome.
With this line, you completely nuked the point of this post. I hope you noticed that.