Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”
Steele’s argument is utterly correct. More marriages would mean that more benefits would be paid out. However, it’s still ridiculous because the exact same argument could be used against all marriages. And if you think about it, because heterosexual marriages would more likely lead to children, which would lead to more benefits, heterosexual marriages would actually be worse for businesses than gay marriages!
Does Steele and the GOP really want to be against the institution of marriage? Will Steele call for a moratorium on all new marriages until the financial crisis is over?
But wait, it gets even more bizarre, if you continue with Steele’s logic, it necessarily follows that unmarried gay couples are good for small businesses! So not only he is against the institution of marriage, he’s in favor of promiscuous homosexuality!
Named,
In general you make good arguments, but I still differ on your insistence that government only see people as a tax base.
By our democratic process, WE govern ourselves. The purpose of any government is stability and progress. The way we get there is using taxes to pay for that.
Of course, if you live in a country where you don’t get a chance to elect your own officials, …
141,
I love government. Its the most advanced form of society. And one in which our voices are heard, while debatable in practice, is truly a powerful human development.
In terms of this topic, gay marriage hurting small businesses, I was shocked that people forget, or forgot, that government is run by taxpayers, and these taxpayers need to be replenished. And a lot of marriage related government tax credits are to facilitate children rearing. Its only logical. But, I’m not so naive as to believe that government is strictly to do that; grow the base. Now, that doesn’t mean you HAVE to have children or course.
Named,
What about the taxes paid on the $3.1 billion industry that will be sparked by the increase in marriages?
Why would you or a politician not want to take advantage of taxing the existing base of humans?
(See post #40)
143,
There is very little we disagree on. When did I say government doesn’t like extra tax revenue? Let’s clarify some things: I don’t believe in marriage as a religious construct. I believe that couples of any human kind should be able to legally marry and enjoy the exact same rights as other couples. I believe that childless couples are as valid as couples with children. I believe that children can be procured by any legal means, including intercourse. On top of all that, I also believe governments enjoy tax revenues.
So… what is it we disagree on? You think we should cull the herd of humanity. I say it’s not necessary. A child in Niger consumes 1/1000th of a child in the US. In the US population growth is only occurring due to immigration. Therefore, consumption excess is the problem, and that problem is strictly in the US/West. It’s not a number of babies problem. It’s how much a US baby requires in comparison to 1000 children from Niger.
Dig? And if you think there are too many people, off yourself. You’ve already said that your genes aren’t good enough for anything other than meme digging, and you’re not going to try and create a human being better than yourself. What good are you? Don’t take it wrong, but if you’re not contributing now, and you can’t contribute to the future, AND you think that there are too many people… the answer is so clear, you’re just scared of the final solution.
But… don’t do it. I’d rather your useless carcass taking up space AND posting on the blog than just filling up land as worm food. Thoughts are like the wind… but with intelligent comments you might spur someone else to greater things. Socrates did it. Even if his city made him kill himself.
Named,
Even at the rates of consumption of Nigerians, there are simply not enough resources on the planet for the number of humans we have today.
And, remember, when people live in poverty, they breed like rabbits.
Technology is not going to make a new earth full of additional resources.
Technology is not going to allow humans to live without food. People are made of food … and we’re running out of it.
As for offing myself, sorry. I may do that when the time comes. Right now, I’m going to enjoy the one life I have to the best of my ability. I have done what I am willing to do to avoid furthering the blight on the biosphere that is humanity.
And, I won’t be taking up space in the ground as worm food either. I plan to get back into the food chain as quickly as possible, and preferably not as food for maggots.
What do we disagree on? At least two quite significant points:
1) You think it is OK for the government to act against the will of the people because they want more tax dollars. You said this was not true and then just went back to it in your last post.
2) You think that the planet is an infinite resource capable of sustaining an infinite number of humans. It should be obvious that this is false since we have measured the mass of the planet. But, that does not seem to convince you.
Oh … and you didn’t answer my question at all.
Did you read about the 3.1 billion dollar stimulus available for free simply by allowing same sex marriage?