I.O.U. $8,000
There are plenty of arguments that taxpayer money shouldn't support the arts. The argument often boils down to "I find this artist/this art work offense, and therefore my tax dollars shouldn't be going to this".
I've even heard a similar argument for using tax dollars to fund education. The argument isn't that they are offended by education (thought perhaps some are), but that they have to pay ever increasing property tax. And in this part of the country that ever increasing property seems to be ever increasing because the local schools want more and more money. And the argument goes, "I don't have kids in the schools, so why should I be taxed so much to support something I am not invested in?"
All very interesting arguments. Not sure I agree with them, but if the politicians I vote for want to start using such arguments to cut funding for art or education, then let me point them to this article from USA Today.
War costs may total $2.4 trillion
And not only that, but it turns out this boils down to about $8,000 per man, woman and child currently in the United States.
So somewhere along the line, Uncle Sam is going to get this from me. Not all at once. That would be too painful, and I might actually vote for a third party. But rest assured, I'll pay my share for this war that I find offensive and that I don't want to participate in. Not only will I pay my share, but so will Sofi and Isaac. The total for our family will be $32,000.
So Mr./Ms. Congressman, next time you want to cut the budget for arts and education because not everyone should have to pay for these things, please remember how much my family and I paid for your other "governmental program". And instead of decreasing these budgets, consider diverting funds. I'd much rather see more of our money go there.
You know, oddly enough, perhaps the answer to the rising war cost is rapid growth of the population! If there were more people in the U.S. we could spread the burden of the war debt, and it wouldn't cost so much per person.
Guess I shouldn't have gotten that vasectomy after all.
I've even heard a similar argument for using tax dollars to fund education. The argument isn't that they are offended by education (thought perhaps some are), but that they have to pay ever increasing property tax. And in this part of the country that ever increasing property seems to be ever increasing because the local schools want more and more money. And the argument goes, "I don't have kids in the schools, so why should I be taxed so much to support something I am not invested in?"
All very interesting arguments. Not sure I agree with them, but if the politicians I vote for want to start using such arguments to cut funding for art or education, then let me point them to this article from USA Today.
War costs may total $2.4 trillion
And not only that, but it turns out this boils down to about $8,000 per man, woman and child currently in the United States.
So somewhere along the line, Uncle Sam is going to get this from me. Not all at once. That would be too painful, and I might actually vote for a third party. But rest assured, I'll pay my share for this war that I find offensive and that I don't want to participate in. Not only will I pay my share, but so will Sofi and Isaac. The total for our family will be $32,000.
So Mr./Ms. Congressman, next time you want to cut the budget for arts and education because not everyone should have to pay for these things, please remember how much my family and I paid for your other "governmental program". And instead of decreasing these budgets, consider diverting funds. I'd much rather see more of our money go there.
You know, oddly enough, perhaps the answer to the rising war cost is rapid growth of the population! If there were more people in the U.S. we could spread the burden of the war debt, and it wouldn't cost so much per person.
Guess I shouldn't have gotten that vasectomy after all.
posted by a n d y at
11:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home