I think Americans for the most part are charitable. I don't think the government should make the choice of how much and when. If I want to burn it to keep warm, it should be my choice.
We're not talking about charitible contributions here, Al....we're talking about funding the operations of our country. I agree, charitible contributions ought to be at the giver's discretion...no doubt.
However, funding the government should not be at the INDIVIDUAL's discretion. Those decisions are a governmental decision, and that's the crux of what our discussion is about.
Politicians are faced every day with decisions that will positively and adversely affect all their constituents....give the poor more "welfare" and the rich, who don't need welfare, suffer. Give the rich more tax breaks and the poor, who can't afford their own corporate jet, suffer. IMHO, what the politicians ought to do is make the choice based on what is best for the MAJORITY of their constituents, not on what their party leadership says they must do. That's no way to budget for the operation of any country....the U.S.A. included.
If, however, we're talking about reducing outlays that have diminishing returns, how about cutting off the "financial aid" we give many 3rd world countries. We did, at one time, need the aliegance of some of those countries, when we were in a "cold war"....now, it's just like "welfare", those who get it think they need it, and need more of it every year. We give $$ to countries and all the wihile we are at a place where our government might not be able to borrow more????? Why are we borrowing when we are giving away a single penny to other countries?
That's just one of the governmental budgetary decisions I take exception with....but helping people who work for minimum wage (or, even less, as in the food service industry....yep, that's the guys and gals who wait on your tables!!) try to put a roof over their family's heads and food on the table, simple survival issues, sure seems to be more important than giving the oil companies tax subsidies that they don't really NEED to survive or giving the rich corporation executives tax breaks so they have $$ to buy their own corporate jets....nope, those don't seem near as important to me.
As for the Mexicans you mentioned....I was married into a Hispanic family for 17 years, found them all to be hard working individuals, but not a one of them (and you know they do tend to have large families) was what I would consider wealthy. Your hispanic friends who made themselves rich are the exception, not the norm, and I sincerely doubt they worked any harder than my former in-laws. You're right....they were in the right place at the right time, got lucky.....hard work was a part of it, but I can't imagine they could have worked harder than my in-laws.
People are important to me, Al.....more important than making sure you or any other wealthy individual gets to keep enough of their money that they can swim in it. Remember "Scrooge" from the comic books.....tossing his money into the air and squealing with ecstasy as it rained down on him? That doesn't appear greedy to you? It sure does to me, especially when I know hard working people who barely make enough to support their families, even with some assistance from those "charitable" organizations like food pantries that are not funded by our government.
Yet we still give "foreign aid" to Pakistan.....even Pakistan said it didn't need the $800M that the POTUS cut out of their "windfall" at the expense of our taxpayers.
It's all priorities, Al....yours seems to be accumilation (not that there is anything exceptionally wrong with that, it's just not exceptionally right, IMHO).
Cheers, and agreement that we can disagree, from Doug!!