My liberal Facebook friend's post referencing NYT article here:
Don't get why deficit reduction means cutting Americorps and the CPB (Mr. Rogers anyone?), and taking money from programs to hire police, to create efficient and clean energy, and build high-speed trains is preferable to eliminating tax cuts for people who make over $250,000. Can anyone explain it to simple little me?
My response:
I can try!
Americorps is great, but could be better if funded and run privately,
Public broadcasting should be able to compete in the non-govt funded market.
The feds are constitutionally bound to leave certain policing programs to the state and local level
Clean efficient energy would pay off big-time to anyone who can pull it off, why fund it if the profits would be their own reward
High-speed trains are a known boondoggle everywhere they've been tried in the US
People who make piles of cash don't horde it, they use it, usually in a way that makes the money circulate to someone else, thereby increasing jobs.
I know from one perspective it seems "just plain mean" to be calling for cuts like this, but if you really think about it, the best way to help all these programs grow is probably to leave the most money possible in the hands of people who can decide for themselves what should be supported, rather than forcing the money out of their pockets, forcing them to support things they might not, and fund these projects in an unaccountable way (What happens if a train goes over budget? They just tax more and levee the people again. It's unconscionable)
Don't get why deficit reduction means cutting Americorps and the CPB (Mr. Rogers anyone?), and taking money from programs to hire police, to create efficient and clean energy, and build high-speed trains is preferable to eliminating tax cuts for people who make over $250,000. Can anyone explain it to simple little me?
My response:
I can try!
Americorps is great, but could be better if funded and run privately,
Public broadcasting should be able to compete in the non-govt funded market.
The feds are constitutionally bound to leave certain policing programs to the state and local level
Clean efficient energy would pay off big-time to anyone who can pull it off, why fund it if the profits would be their own reward
High-speed trains are a known boondoggle everywhere they've been tried in the US
People who make piles of cash don't horde it, they use it, usually in a way that makes the money circulate to someone else, thereby increasing jobs.
I know from one perspective it seems "just plain mean" to be calling for cuts like this, but if you really think about it, the best way to help all these programs grow is probably to leave the most money possible in the hands of people who can decide for themselves what should be supported, rather than forcing the money out of their pockets, forcing them to support things they might not, and fund these projects in an unaccountable way (What happens if a train goes over budget? They just tax more and levee the people again. It's unconscionable)
Comments