Here come the Democratic Taxes

[waste gate]

Rich went from one million dollars/year to $150,000/year.
This is the kind of thing we can expect to be ratified by a Democrat in the White House.

Remove the incentive to succeed. Keep everyone in survival mode, knowing no matter how hard you work you can never get ahead.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=133

[Sea Demon]

Don't forget the all-time favorite pasttime of the Democrat party. Create more government dependency, and tax those not dependent on government to pay for it.

[nikimcbee]

WG,
I can't believe you don't support the policies of the future leader...


Here, watch this video and you will embrace it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2-zzmCmMVI
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/e/c/hillary_vader2.jpg (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-hillarykillbill.htm)

Remember, it takes a comrade to build the collective.

[Letum]

no matter how hard you work you can never get ahead.


That's the same in any system.
If every person in the world worked as hard as he/she could you would not end up with
everyone being a millionaire. You would still need the same amount of people scraping
s*** of the floor of the public conveniences.

The way to get more money is not to work hard; this is evident when you compare the
work loads of the rich and poor. The way to get rich is to control the means of
production whilst exploiting the workforce and both exploiting and manipulating the
consumers.

Those who actually work hard tend to be in the lower social and economic groups and
have a tendency to die young of industrial related illness.

It is quite clearly exploitation and manipulation of others that gets money, not hard
work.
In Europe, the rise of unions and strict control of enterprise via regulation, tax and
fines as well as compulsory competition has attempted to both restrict the explotive and manipulative
power of corporations and counter it by allowing the customer and employee to
manipulate the cooperation to some extent.
Both business and personal, tax plays a vital role in this; both the extraction and
allocation of those tax funds.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, I read this earlier today. What a crock. Plan on opening the checkbook boys. It will only hurt a bit:shifty:

[Sea Demon]

Yes. It is horrible. And if you look into it, and read what Rangel (D) is saying, he plans for new entitlements and extensions of the hideous Earned Income Tax Credit....and other tax-payer ripoffs like that. His goal is to create more government dependancy, using money from people not dependant on the government. Well, one thing you can expect is higher taxes from capital gains. So forget short term or medium term investments with any Democrat in control. Killing incentive, and shrinking economic growth is only a start to what these Democrats will bring. It amazes me how people on the left have lost all love of personal freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it.

[waste gate]

Hillary Quote (http://hegemonic.org/2007/10/13/hillary-quote/)

What will a Hillary Presidency be like?
“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…Government has to make those choices for people” ~Hillary Clinton (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)
If that doesn’t give you a good idea, this quote may help…
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you … We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. ~Explaining her opposition to President Bush’s tax cut in San Francisco (28 June 2004) (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040629-0007-ca-clintons-sanfrancisco.html)

[Sea Demon]

Hillary Quote (http://hegemonic.org/2007/10/13/hillary-quote/)

What will a Hillary Presidency be like?“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…Government has to make those choices for people” ~Hillary Clinton (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)
If that doesn’t give you a good idea, this quote may help…“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you … We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. ~Explaining her opposition to President Bush’s tax cut in San Francisco (28 June 2004) (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040629-0007-ca-clintons-sanfrancisco.html)

That's exactly the mentality of the Democrat Party. In their minds, your money doesn't belong to you. It's the government's money. And you are their property. In their minds, they want to be able to tell you how much money they will let you keep. This is why I say people on the left have no love of personal freedom. Because they support this type of governmental control over personal property.

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks for that, Waste Gate. There's nothing like a direct quote to show what a person really means.

I've often said that before anyone can be in a position to touch taxes, they must first be of the simple opinion: "All taxes are evil. A necessary evil, of course, but evil nonetheless."

[Letum]

I've often said that before anyone can be in a position to touch taxes, they must first be of the simple opinion: "All taxes are evil. A necessary evil, of course, but evil nonetheless."

Why?

Tax is the only way to achieve social justice.

[waste gate]

I've often said that before anyone can be in a position to touch taxes, they must first be of the simple opinion: "All taxes are evil. A necessary evil, of course, but evil nonetheless."

Why?

Tax is the only way to achieve social justice.

What is social justice? Those that suceed pay for those that don't?

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need?

[DeepIron]

What is social justice? Those that suceed pay for those that don't? Sounds more like a "social equality" or even more like "Social Evolution" ... I can see it now, survival of two classes: the richest, and the most adaptable at scrounging. A completely polarized society where there is no mistake where one stands socially or fiscally... The very top and absolute bottom tiers of the social ladder, the owners and the owned, the haves and the never-will-haves...

[DeepSix]

Hillary Quote (http://hegemonic.org/2007/10/13/hillary-quote/)


What will a Hillary Presidency be like?“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…Government has to make those choices for people”
That's exactly the mentality of the Democrat Party. In their minds, your money doesn't belong to you. It's the government's money. And you are their property. In their minds, they want to be able to tell you how much money they will let you keep. This is why I say people on the left have no love of personal freedom. Because they support this type of governmental control over personal property.

Yup. The idea that government knows what is best for me or anyone else is anathema to the principles that this country is founded on, and yet this country is apparently full of Nerf-brained people who are willing to accept it. What amazes me is that people apparently can't see the Left's Big Brother policies for what they are. The substance of liberty is gradually and quietly being confused with an addiction to luxury. Cushier lifestyles will not make our country any freer, any wealthier, or any stronger. Yet we seem willing to go along anyway.

My favorite Hillary quote is (as put by Giuliani in the Republican debate): "I have a million ideas and America can't afford them all."

[DeepIron]

“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…Government has to make those choices for people”
I would think that is true now more than ever. Mr and Mrs Average Knucklehead are more interested in who got flushed off "Dancing with the Stars" than hearing candidates in a political debate. The media will take their slant and focus on whatever dirt gets them better ratings.

C'mon, Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton get more attention from the media and American public than Clinton, Obama or any other political hopeful.

Don't believe me? Stand around the water cooler sometime and just listen to what people are discussing... betcha it ain't politics bubba...

And you want the public to make "informed decisions"? :rotfl:

[waste gate]

Hillary Quote (http://hegemonic.org/2007/10/13/hillary-quote/)






What will a Hillary Presidency be like?“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…Government has to make those choices for people”That's exactly the mentality of the Democrat Party. In their minds, your money doesn't belong to you. It's the government's money. And you are their property. In their minds, they want to be able to tell you how much money they will let you keep. This is why I say people on the left have no love of personal freedom. Because they support this type of governmental control over personal property.

Yup. The idea that government knows what is best for me or anyone else is anathema to the principles that this country is founded on, and yet this country is apparently full of Nerf-brained people who are willing to accept it. What amazes me is that people apparently can't see the Left's Big Brother policies for what they are. The substance of liberty is gradually and quietly being confused with an addiction to luxury. Cushier lifestyles will not make our country any freer, any wealthier, or any stronger. Yet we seem willing to go along anyway.

My favorite Hillary quote is (as put by Giuliani in the Republican debate): "I have a million ideas and America can't afford them all."

And Rudy had the correct response; Hillary, America (US) can't afford you.:up: :rock:

Unfortunately Rudy has some other positions on issues which give me pause.

[DeepSix]

Same here; it's still too early to tell, but he does have "electability." Several of the candidates appeal to me for different reasons, not the least of which is who can be successfully "marketed" in the general election. I thought the Florida debate was good; it will be interesting to see who the running mates are and how the "issues" get played after Iowa.

[Sea Demon]

Same here; it's still too early to tell, but he does have "electability." Several of the candidates appeal to me for different reasons, not the least of which is who can be successfully "marketed" in the general election. I thought the Florida debate was good; it will be interesting to see who the running mates are and how the "issues" get played after Iowa.

I agree it will be interesting. As far as running mates go, I think one of these front-runners may just end up as a VP running mate. Maybe Thompson and Guiliani???

[The WosMan]

Social justice is marxist code talk for "we take your money and rights". Whenever you hear someone use that term you know that they are a communist.

I am sick and tired of people creating divisions where there shouldn't be, race-baiting, and class envy. There should be two classes of haves and have nots because is how the world works. It isn't all happy and cheerful and nice and that is impossible because human nature would never allow it.

People, including myself, work hard for what we have and I will be damned if I am going to let Hillary in or Charlie Rangel walk in and take it and decide how to spend it.

Sounds more like a "social equality" or even more like "Social Evolution" ... I can see it now, survival of two classes: the richest, and the most adaptable at scrounging. A completely polarized society where there is no mistake where one stands socially or fiscally... The very top and absolute bottom tiers of the social ladder, the owners and the owned, the haves and the never-will-haves... Yeah, you know what, the most adaptable at scrounging and surviving are the rich in this country. You could take away all their money and they will come back in 10 years rich again. They are the ones that make this system work, that provide people like you and I with a job and a career and an opportunity and sign your cheque. If you are content to sit on your laurels and work the same job 30 years and not move up then it is your own fault and you have nobody to blame for your situation other than yourself.

This tax increase would destroy the economy because the main targets of it would likely pull an Atlas Shrugged, dump their employees, raise their costs of goods to the consumer (because corporations never pay taxes, they pass the cost on to you) and if they have properties or investments they will dump them which will further depress the market. When will you people learn that the only reason Rangel and Hillary want that tax money is for power and control. They could give a rat's behind about the poor, they happen to be part of the wealthiest 10% too.

[P_Funk]

What is social justice? Those that suceed pay for those that don't?

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need? What is success? And what is a failure to succeed? You speak in general terms and assume that they fit nicely into your logic. But really what determines success? The richest people in the world are almost exclusively those who inherited vast bodies of wealth and continue to expand them without effort because they have the right to take the bulk of the profits and use those profits to expand into more wealth. As Letum said the hardest working don't get nearly the value of their work. The Value Added of a single person's work is completely disproportionate to the wage he receives. When the economy goes sour, largely due to those who have wealth getting greedy and pushing the market too hard so that supply exceeds demand, the first thing to go down is wages. Those that did their jobs lose most because those that have so much don't want to stop making so much.

I also noticed that nobody bothered to answer Letum's statement, instead enjoying the moral superiority of taking shots at Hillary.

[Sea Demon]

What is success? And what is a failure to succeed? You speak in general terms and assume that they fit nicely into your logic. But really what determines success? The richest people in the world are almost exclusively those who inherited vast bodies of wealth and continue to expand them without effort because they have the right to take the bulk of the profits and use those profits to expand into more wealth. As Letum said the hardest working don't get nearly the value of their work. The Value Added of a single person's work is completely disproportionate to the wage he receives. When the economy goes sour, largely due to those who have wealth getting greedy and pushing the market too hard so that supply exceeds demand, the first thing to go down is wages. Those that did their jobs lose most because those that have so much don't want to stop making so much.

I also noticed that nobody bothered to answer Letum's statement, instead enjoying the moral superiority of taking shots at Hillary.

Absolute hogwash. Read this:

http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/21/top15billionaires.html

With the exception of the Saudi Prince, these people are providing global goods and services at an astronomical rate. And they've expanded or acheived greater success through nominal economic expansion. Maybe you have an HP desktop or a Dell. Is Michael Dell evil to you? Are the shareholders of HP evil to you for getting returns on their investments? How about MS shareholders? Are you jealous? Of course, you have the disease called "wealth envy". So you don't get how real wealth is gained, earned, or how risk capital can be turned into profits. And how that is actually good for a nations economy.

BTW, who should assign the value of someone's work? Remember, you nor the government owns jobs in the private sector. The employer does. And every employer I've come into contact with has paid the fair market value for the work done, and for the cost of living in the area lived in. If the employer does not pay a wage commensurate with a competitive wage, he won't be able to cover the positions. The reason why low skilled occupations, like burger flipper, meat packer, and such don't make as much is because the market is saturated with low skilled people looking for those types of jobs. And the turn over is rather high in those occupations. That's also why higher skilled jobs, and higher education will usually result in a higher net worth.

BTW, I used to be a "have not" myself. I'm now pretty well off. And I'm a "person of color" :roll: . How did I do it in such a so-called "unjust" society?!?!?! Bottom line, if people don't bust their butt's, they simply will not acheive success. In a free society, you make choices. Some choices make you poor. Like making babies you can't afford. Or dropping out of school and partying. Or choosing to engage in criminal activity. Or just settling for whatever comes your way, rather than pursuing something that can bring better rewards. You'll only go as high as your work, investment, time, energy, choices, persistence, and innovation take you. And you are free to pursue or not pursue higher goals for yourself. But if you don't pursue higher goals, you only have yourself to blame. Likewise, if you choose poorly like the examples above, you only should look in the mirror for the culprit. Personal freedom, personal responsibility, and good decision making are a part of living in a free nation. If you can't handle it, Chavez is having his little revolution in Venezuela. Please move there. Because whining here won't get you what you want. Because people in "Red" revolution societies usually are or become destitute, oppressed, and unhappy, they will usually do anything to escape their marxist "paradise". I don't know why some in the free world refuse to learn that lesson.

People, including myself, work hard for what we have and I will be damned if I am going to let Hillary in or Charlie Rangel walk in and take it and decide how to spend it.

Well Said! :up: Count me in as someone who has worked too hard to allow these hacks to confiscate my property to give to those who refuse to take care of themselves. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes to take care of infrastructure, military, national R & D like space research, and such. But I'm sick of paying for things that grown adults should be doing for themselves.

[LtCmdrRat]

Hillary [censored] sweet lady of democrats sonets
Democrat Al Gore as a Nobel Prize winner....[sensored] educated prostitute
Same as G.W. Bush with his WMD in Iraq [censored] liberator


May be better to be subjects of the E-II Crown than to have such honorable gents ( and probably lady ) as head of state?( God, save us from Hillary!).
Bill of rights started to look like a mirage in the Sahara's sands.

Good sides to be subjects of the crown:
- better school education
- 40 and less hours to work
- bigger vacations
- you have time to read, to travel, for your loveones (including your kids and even wife)
- nobility ( knighthood)* and i am very serious about this.
- better health care
- professional police, they will not shoot you because they just had feeling that you are armed
- less shooting practice in schools
- freedom of speech including jokes about everything in airports.
- less sexual harasment cases
- no Darwin debates

Bad sides:
- all ot the above &
- bigger taxes

// i quoted myself from other post

[DeepSix]

....But I'm sick of paying for things that grown adults should be doing for themselves.

Absolutely. Too many people seem to confuse "freedom" with "freedom from responsibility."

A Giuliani/Thompson team would be interesting. It's possible (anything's possible in politics:D) and it could work, but I also wonder if Rudy and Fred would put aside their differences over tort reform and abortion? On the other hand, their jabs at each other during the debate may have been limited to the debate - the differences may evaporate in a few months ("Oh? What differences? We see eye to eye on everything....").

One would think that some combination of Rudy and McCain would work, since they're both seen as moderates and are not that far apart in principles (AFAIK), and thus would have the broadest appeal. Likewise, Thompson and Huckabee might appeal to the social conservatives.... But who knows. I was somewhat surprised to find myself liking Huckabee more. I don't think he's got much chance for the nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised if the nomination went to a "moderate" who then turned around and tapped Huckabee as a running mate to bring in the social conservatives.

At any rate, I feel better about the field than I did before.

[Gorduz]

deleted

[P_Funk]

With the exception of the Saudi Prince, these people are providing global goods and services at an astronomical rate. And they've expanded or acheived greater success through nominal economic expansion. Maybe you have an HP desktop or a Dell. Is Michael Dell evil to you? Are the shareholders of HP evil to you for getting returns on their investments? How about MS shareholders? Are you jealous? Of course, you have the disease called "wealth envy". So you don't get how real wealth is gained, earned, or how risk capital can be turned into profits. And how that is actually good for a nations economy.
Of course, my ideas are not the result of any reality, only some form of irrational jealousy based on not being rich. And here you support the standard capitalist economic benchmark of more production is better. If you sell it then its good, then you're a good person. Nevermind that on that list is the family that owns Wal-Mart which is accused of being exploitative of its workers, and theres Bill Gates who, at the time of that article, had just seen that court ordered split of Microsoft. Further you assume that since I disagree with our paradigm that I therefore lack an understanding of how the economic machine functions. I never said capitalism didn't work. In fact it works wonderfully, for who its meant to.

BTW, who should assign the value of someone's work? Remember, you nor the government owns jobs in the private sector. The employer does. And every employer I've come into contact with has paid the fair market value for the work done, and for the cost of living in the area lived in. If the employer does not pay a wage commensurate with a competitive wage, he won't be able to cover the positions. The reason why low skilled occupations, like burger flipper, meat packer, and such don't make as much is because the market is saturated with low skilled people looking for those types of jobs. And the turn over is rather high in those occupations. That's also why higher skilled jobs, and higher education will usually result in a higher net worth.
All good points. However these low rent jobs which don't support a sustainable living require no qualifications. To get a higher net worth as you say you need higher education. Here enters the limitations of poverty. To get a higher skill level you need to go to a school generally. So poverty immediately handicaps anyone who wants to compete with someone with money. Its hard to get ahead with low skilled jobs that don't pay enough for post-secondary, and this is still ignoring the social implications of poverty which might otherwise retard fruther the process of 'success'.

I can't imagine every poor person chooses to be poor, or that poverty is purely a result of sloth. Its such a facile idea.

[Sea Demon]

I never said capitalism didn't work. In fact it works wonderfully, for who its meant to.
Right. But if you want it to work for you, you have to actually participate in it. Just sitting on the sidelines and screaming about what everyone else is doing won't help you. I think that's the ultimate reason why some don't make it in the system. Because they refuse to participate. They'd rather participate in crying and moaning over "class envy" issues, made up "social injustice", and other things. Individuals are solely responsible for their own outcomes. That applies in the real world. Not some school textbook, or what comes out of the mouth of a lefty professor in some social science course.


I can't imagine every poor person chooses to be poor, or that poverty is purely a result of sloth. Its such a facile idea.
Not necessarily. Just some choose to be poor by making bad decisions. Put another way, People make bad choices...which leads to poverty. Making babies you can't afford is one of the prime examples of how to keep yourself in abject poverty. Watching loads of TV at night rather than taking some night school courses and trying to develop valuable marketable skills is another way not to get ahead. Dropping out of high school and choosing to engage in criminal activity is another way you may end up poor. If you want to make it in a free society, it's up to you to do the work. Not the government to make everything right for you. I swear some people would do alot better, get richer, and have a better quality of life if they would focus on what they need to do to succeed rather than worrying about what everyone else has. Individuals nned to take responsibility for their own outcomes.

[SUBMAN1]

I never quite understood how communism and cummunist ideas could enter our American Senate, and then have a communist run for president and hold the democratic parties reigns, but I live in a wierd world I guess.

-S

PS. I also never understood why democrats say they are out for the people, but when you analyze each and every one of their own personal wealth, they obviously are out for themselves with almost all of them being multi millionaires. Seems they are out for the people to make them wealthy allright. This probably means that Republicans are truely the ones for the people.

[Letum]

I never quite understood how communism and cummunist ideas could enter our American Senate, and then have a communist run for president and hold the democratic parties reigns, but I live in a wierd world I guess.

-S

PS. I also never understood why democrats say they are out for the people, but when you analyze each and every one of their own personal wealth, they obviously are out for themselves with almost all of them being multi millionaires. Seems they are out for the people to make them wealthy allright. This probably means that Republicans are truely the ones for the people.

What's your definition of "communism" here?

Are we talking old skool Marxism? Leninism? Proto-Lenin Dictatorship? North European Social Democracy? The Utopian Ideal?

[SUBMAN1]

What's your definition of "communism" here?

Are we talking old skool Marxism? Leninism? Proto-Lenin Dictatorship? North European Social Democracy? The Utopian Ideal?http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

-S

PS. In case anyone cares to know the ratio of democrat to rebuplican millionaires in Congress, it is a ratio of 4 to 1.

[waste gate]

-S

PS. In case anyone cares to know the ratio of democrat to rebuplican millionaires in Congress, it is a ratio of 4 to 1.

If the class envy folks only knew.:hmm:

[Sea Demon]

-S

PS. In case anyone cares to know the ratio of democrat to rebuplican millionaires in Congress, it is a ratio of 4 to 1.
If the class envy folks only knew.:hmm:

Unfortunately, the class-envy folks simply won't listen. They purposely put their own blindfolds over their own eyes.

[SUBMAN1]

-S

PS. In case anyone cares to know the ratio of democrat to rebuplican millionaires in Congress, it is a ratio of 4 to 1.
If the class envy folks only knew.:hmm:
Unfortunately, the class-envy folks simply won't listen. They purposely put their own blindfolds over their own eyes.But but bit! Aren't the democrats the ones for the working class man? Aren't they the ones in the same boots as the working class man? Seems they got some very shiny boots on the backs of that working class man to me! Maybe this is why they don't care about lowering the tax bracket of the rich to that of the working class man since it will have no effect on them! They already pay the higher tax bracket, and on top of that, they already found some sleezy way to get out of paying the higher taxes so it doesn't even bother them in the slightest!

Communism at its finest.

-S

[Sea Demon]

But but bit! Aren't the democrats the ones for the working class man? Aren't they the ones in the same boots as the working class man? Seems they got some very shiny boots on the backs of that working class man to me! Maybe this is why they don't care about lowering the tax bracket of the rich to that of the working class man since it will have no effect on them! They already pay the higher tax bracket, and on top of that, they already found some sleezy way to get out of paying the higher taxes so it doesn't even bother them in the slightest!

Communism at its finest.

-S

Good points. I agree with your assessment. They already got theirs, ya know. I also think they are mostly interested in creating government dependancy out of the working man. Rather than trying to remove obstacles that will enable the working man to be self sufficient.

[Sea Demon]

Aren't the democrats the ones for the working class man? Aren't they the ones in the same boots as the working class man? Seems they got some very shiny boots on the backs of that working class man to me!

Communism at its finest.

-S
That's definitely what they want you to believe. :yep: But yes, they've been exploiting the working man using class envy and other tools to secure their own positions. They promise everything and deliver nothing. If you look at your typical longtime Democrat constituency, they're still crying about the same stuff they've been crying about for decades. Only now, they're nuttier. And the Democrats they continually elect that promise them the fixes, never fix anything. Democrats don't want problems solved. I've said it a million times before, If you are happy, prosperous, and fulfilled, what the hell would you need a liberal democrat for?? :88)

[The WosMan]

I never quite understood how communism and cummunist ideas could enter our American Senate, and then have a communist run for president and hold the democratic parties reigns, but I live in a wierd world I guess.

-S

PS. I also never understood why democrats say they are out for the people, but when you analyze each and every one of their own personal wealth, they obviously are out for themselves with almost all of them being multi millionaires. Seems they are out for the people to make them wealthy allright. This probably means that Republicans are truely the ones for the people.

What's your definition of "communism" here?

Are we talking old skool Marxism? Leninism? Proto-Lenin Dictatorship? North European Social Democracy? The Utopian Ideal?

They're all the same. Different name, same thing.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is that these top wealthy Democrats really don't care about these tax increase because they are exempt in many ways. Most of the top wealthy Dems are of inherited wealth and they generally have a lot of money tied up but little taxable income. A lot of these guys are worth hundreds of millions of dollars but they only pay taxes on a small fraction of that money compared to the "new rich" who are earning $100,000+ a year but pay a higher percentage of their income.

The fact is the top 10% pay 95% of the taxes in this country and it proves that taxes should not be progressive. Everyone should share the burden of taxes because the people who don't have to pay as much don't give a rat's patoot whether or not there is an increase because in their own little world they will stand to benefit from whatever scraps Uncle Sam throws their way while the middle/upper middle class and up all get hosed.

The reality is I am pleased the Democrats went and stepped in this pile of dogdoo. Openly touting tax increases is a surefire way to commit political suicide and they won't get what they want anyways.

[Sailor Steve]

I've often said that before anyone can be in a position to touch taxes, they must first be of the simple opinion: "All taxes are evil. A necessary evil, of course, but evil nonetheless."

Why?

Tax is the only way to achieve social justice.
That's the big difference between us. I stand with the men who created America, believing that government is there solely to guarantee maximum freedom; whereas you see it as a tool to provide control, forcing everyone to follow your idea of what is right, whether they agree with you or not.

As I said, If you believe that any tax is a good thing, you shouldn't be allowed near anyone else's money.

[DeepSix]

"Show me a young man who's not a liberal, and I'll show you a man with no heart. Show me an old man who's not a conservative, and I'll show you a man with no brain." - attributed to Winston Churchill

I don't mind liberals with whom I can amicably agree to disagree; I have a great deal of respect for anyone with a thoughtful and reasoned opinion. The problem today, though, is that this is practically impossible, as most of those who claim to stand for tolerance absolutely refuse to tolerate any opinion that differs from their own.

The Left is dominated by people like Rangel, Pelosi, Kennedy, the Clintons, Boxer, and so forth; these are people who stay in power by manufacturing any mandate they claim they have. It's like "The Emperor's New Clothes." They get people to pretend with them that this side of an issue is good, that one bad, or that an issue even exists at all, to wit: "If you're a teenager, get pregnant and stay that way because you'll never get ahead and I'll have a reason to stick it to the Man." Of course they don't say it that way, but in practice that's what it comes down to. They never advocate pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. It's always somebody else's fault and that Somebody owes Us something. Crap.

They keep down the people they claim to be fighting for. That's it and nothing more; they have no other legitimacy - this is why they come out with off the wall hatemongering things like blaming hurricanes and wildfires on a presidential administration. I mean, accusations of that sort are just pure vitriol and nothing else, and peddling it is the only thing that keeps them in power.

I am reminded of one of my favorite Clint Eastwood scenes (High Plains Drifter). I'm paraphrasing but hopefully not too inaccurately:

[Minister]: "You can't just put these people out on the street!"
[Eastwood]: "Are all of these people your brothers and sisters?"
[Minister]: "They most certainly are!"
[Eastwood]: "Fine. Then you won't mind if they stay at your place for a few days, then, will you?"

[Letum]

I've often said that before anyone can be in a position to touch taxes, they must first be of the simple opinion: "All taxes are evil. A necessary evil, of course, but evil nonetheless."
Why?

Tax is the only way to achieve social justice. That's the big difference between us. I stand with the men who created America, believing that government is there solely to guarantee maximum freedom; whereas you see it as a tool to provide control, forcing everyone to follow your idea of what is right, whether they agree with you or not.

As I said, If you believe that any tax is a good thing, you shouldn't be allowed near anyone else's money.
I suppose the alternate point of view to that in the same language is...


That's the big difference between us. I stand with the men who freed Europe from
authoritarian rule by the ultra-rich aristocracy and from the suffering of the underclasses,
believing that government is there to guarantee maximum freedom what ever your social
or economic conditions and to look after the interests of all; whereas you see it as a tool,
totally separate from morality that has no responsibility to look after the sick, infirm,
disaster stricken or those who are stuck in the endless cycle of poverty and instead
letting vast self interested business oppress those they exploit with only the morality of
money.

If you believe that government has no responsibility for it's people, you shouldn't be allowed near people.

*edit* will tidy up formatting in a sec

[Sailor Steve]

"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
-Gerald R. Ford

You believe government is the answer. I believe it's the problem. I'm perfectly happy with using the government to try to better our lives. I just don't trust people who insist they're taking something away from me for my own good.

In other words, anybody who wants to be in charge shouldn't be trusted. The best president America ever had was George Washington, and that's because he didn't want the job.

[waste gate]

"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
-Gerald R. Ford

You believe government is the answer. I believe it's the problem. I'm perfectly happy with using the government to try to better our lives. I just don't trust people who insist they're taking something away from me for my own good.

In other words, anybody who wants to be in charge shouldn't be trusted. The best president America ever had was George Washington, and that's because he didn't want the job.

Well said.

Much like people who ask to be moderator on Subsim are dismissed, so too those who want to protect you, or want to do what is 'right' for everyone.

[Sea Demon]

As I said, If you believe that any tax is a good thing, you shouldn't be allowed near anyone else's money.

What an eloquent way to put it. :up:

[Letum]

"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have"
-Gerald R. Ford

You believe government is the answer. I believe it's the problem. I'm perfectly happy with using the government to try to better our lives. I just don't trust people who insist they're taking something away from me for my own good.

In other words, anybody who wants to be in charge shouldn't be trusted. The best president America ever had was George Washington, and that's because he didn't want the job.
Well said.

Much like people who ask to be moderator on Subsim are dismissed, so too those who want to protect you, or want to do what is 'right' for everyone.

It's not a case of a few people imposing morality on the rest because it is what has
been voted for by the majority in every social democracy in Europe.
Granted, that's a imposition by oligarchy, but that's democracy for you.

[P_Funk]

I never said capitalism didn't work. In fact it works wonderfully, for who its meant to.
Right. But if you want it to work for you, you have to actually participate in it. Just sitting on the sidelines and screaming about what everyone else is doing won't help you. I think that's the ultimate reason why some don't make it in the system. Because they refuse to participate. They'd rather participate in crying and moaning over "class envy" issues, made up "social injustice", and other things. Individuals are solely responsible for their own outcomes. That applies in the real world. Not some school textbook, or what comes out of the mouth of a lefty professor in some social science course. More broad assumptions, and backhanded insults too. You firstly assume that any person who is in favour of a commonly termed 'left wing' ideology is somehow not trying or is not participating in the process. You proof? Do you know me personally, or all of the other lefties out there? Are you assuming this based on your personal unprovable prejudice about the nature of left wing thought? You are very confident in your ideas but you constantly make assessments that cannot be proven, nor are likely to be true if proven. If I were not trying then I wouldn't be listening to my pinko-commie professors would I? As you said yourself higher education is the key to a greater net worth ergo people such as myself go to school. But then if in the process I adopt ideas which are against the grain of society I am branded as somehow not a participant in society. And even then you're assuming I didn't believe anything before my so called lefty classes. Apparently being a progressive thinker is a game of brainwashing or neurotic desire to avoid work. You again emphasize 'class envy'. You assume things about me without proof. You don't disprove the validity of my ideas but rather impeach the assumed motivation behind them. This is a very well thought out and written ad hominem, but it is still just that, be it about me or the body of left minded individuals.


I can't imagine every poor person chooses to be poor, or that poverty is purely a result of sloth. Its such a facile idea.
Not necessarily. Just some choose to be poor by making bad decisions. Put another way, People make bad choices...which leads to poverty. Making babies you can't afford is one of the prime examples of how to keep yourself in abject poverty. Watching loads of TV at night rather than taking some night school courses and trying to develop valuable marketable skills is another way not to get ahead. Dropping out of high school and choosing to engage in criminal activity is another way you may end up poor. If you want to make it in a free society, it's up to you to do the work. Not the government to make everything right for you. I swear some people would do alot better, get richer, and have a better quality of life if they would focus on what they need to do to succeed rather than worrying about what everyone else has. Individuals nned to take responsibility for their own outcomes. So now it isn't an absolute but a generalization. 'Some'. So if some people are poor because they choose to be then that implies quite obviously that some are poor despite trying, or at least aren't there because of your outlined reasons. Can you account for this in anyway other than an unfair economic paradigm that keeps them where they are? And even then you don't get specific in terms of ratio. Further you place the entire burden of responsibility on those that engage in behavior counter to what leads to affluence. So all criminals choose crime. Nice and simple. The dynamics of poverty are absent here. The psychological effects of life as a poor person mean the likelihood that these people are going to be affected somehow in a way that limits their ability to make mature sensible decisions is much greater. Add to that the fact that most solutions to severe dysfunction relating to these things, such as abuse of many kinds, are expensive and hard to get when they're needed or for a sustained period. The secret to much success isn't just effort but also support. This is where class divisions are most acutely obvious. And that is just in regards to choosing poverty. That doesn't touch on the inequality of opportunity which faces a willing man which many people believe in, despite it being an unpopular idea.

So you can be derisive about my ideas all you want but don't pretend to know me and my motivations, or assume that I don't parse the ideas thrown at me. The old idea that being young dismisses my ideas is prejudicial. Assuming its all also class prejudice or envy is a generalization that isn't part of an intellectual argument of facts. You side step the arguments about the mechanics of the system and instead attack the people who argue about it.

I don't mind liberals with whom I can amicably agree to disagree; I have a great deal of respect for anyone with a thoughtful and reasoned opinion. The problem today, though, is that this is practically impossible, as most of those who claim to stand for tolerance absolutely refuse to tolerate any opinion that differs from their own.
I very much agree. I however rarely meet a person of conservative belief that deigns to argue rather than just smite my character. See above.

I very much enjoy real arguments with people that disagree with me, but I don't find much of an argument most of the time. Usually it degenerates into an angry polemic against the commies. Theres so much anger, on both sides. In my experience no person with a reasonable opinion reads word for word from their ideological prophet(s). I might have freinds on the left but I don't wholesale accept every idea or proposed action by any one party or author. The thing that bugs me is the universal blurring of all left wing ideas into one single dangerous entity. That would be like calling all Republicans Neo-Conservatives. Its a failure of intellectual imagination or energy to discuss ideas in such broadly narrow terms (if you get what I mean).

I don't think I've ever read a single left wing pamplet in my life, and I really dislike my college anti-war group for lacking any sensibility about armed forces abroad (yes lets just dissolve the military and all the others will do so too). I think that young persons' ideas start like a blunt heavy hammer and narrow to a fine dagger as time wears on. I don't see the betrayal of progressive quasi-socialist ideals as the only natural course for a man.

EDIT. btw Letum is brilliant in his own words. Like I said, not nearly as verbose as moi.

[Sea Demon]

I never said capitalism didn't work. In fact it works wonderfully, for who its meant to.
Right. But if you want it to work for you, you have to actually participate in it. Just sitting on the sidelines and screaming about what everyone else is doing won't help you. I think that's the ultimate reason why some don't make it in the system. Because they refuse to participate. They'd rather participate in crying and moaning over "class envy" issues, made up "social injustice", and other things. Individuals are solely responsible for their own outcomes. That applies in the real world. Not some school textbook, or what comes out of the mouth of a lefty professor in some social science course. More broad assumptions, and backhanded insults too. You firstly assume that any person who is in favour of a commonly termed 'left wing' ideology is somehow not trying or is not participating in the process. You proof? Do you know me personally, or all of the other lefties out there? Are you assuming this based on your personal unprovable prejudice about the nature of left wing thought? You are very confident in your ideas but you constantly make assessments that cannot be proven, nor are likely to be true if proven. If I were not trying then I wouldn't be listening to my pinko-commie professors would I? As you said yourself higher education is the key to a greater net worth ergo people such as myself go to school. But then if in the process I adopt ideas which are against the grain of society I am branded as somehow not a participant in society. And even then you're assuming I didn't believe anything before my so called lefty classes. Apparently being a progressive thinker is a game of brainwashing or neurotic desire to avoid work. You again emphasize 'class envy'. You assume things about me without proof. You don't disprove the validity of my ideas but rather impeach the assumed motivation behind them. This is a very well thought out and written ad hominem, but it is still just that, be it about me or the body of left minded individuals.

I did not intend to apply insult to you. So this is rather a broad generalization of me as well. But yes, unless you participate in the economy, you won't make it. And just participating doesn't translate into success. You may fail. Maybe once or twice. Maybe more. But what's great is that you can get back on the horse and ride again. Also, if you don't pursue greater educational goals, you will only get so far. And have nobody to blame but yourself. Also, choosing a field of study that doesn't pay well...means you won't make the bucks. That's reality. But if you're happy doing what you do...who cares. Money doesn't necessarily mean happiness. But it's the left that seems to think confiscating my money is the answer.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself here. But nobody says you can't have other ideas. But I have a problem with ideas which limit the freedom of others. That's the essence of left-wing views. Using the government as a means to correct perceived "injustices". And in doing so, controlling people's property, and perhaps redistributing other people's property to correct social inequalities. This is wrongheaded totally. And yes, it seems that most of the time class envy is a motivator or a tool pushed by politicians to get people to give them power. So we hear things like "the rich not paying their fair share" despite the rich actually paying the bulk of all income taxes. We get luxury taxes on items...like my own boat because dopes down the road don't have one. And they've employed government by their votes to enact one on me. :nope: If you can't see the class envy in politics, I don't think you're looking very hard for it. It's in broad daylight there.

So now it isn't an absolute but a generalization. 'Some'. So if some people are poor because they choose to be then that implies quite obviously that some are poor despite trying, or at least aren't there because of your outlined reasons. Can you account for this in anyway other than an unfair economic paradigm that keeps them where they are? And even then you don't get specific in terms of ratio. Further you place the entire burden of responsibility on those that engage in behavior counter to what leads to affluence. So all criminals choose crime. Nice and simple. The dynamics of poverty are absent here.

No not all. But your actions will largely determine your outcome. I see it all the time. How far do you think you'll get as a dropout? Unless you're highly innovative and can invent something that drives demand for your idea.....I don't expect you'll get very far. And yes, despite trying you may fail. But does that mean give up and remain poor? Does that mean go running and screaming to the government that other people have stuff, and you have nothing, therefore they should make it right for you? That's economic tyranny you're looking for, if you are this kind of lefty. And what dynamics of poverty and crime are you looking for. I used to be poor. I didn't commit crimes. Many people used to be poor and were not inclined to criminality. That argument does not wash. Yes, criminals choose crime. There are other choices to make, despite hard times. I think your portrayal of poor people being more inclined to criminality is insulting in a way. You are attacking my roots. Nobody, in America at least, is trapped in poverty. There are ways out. I'm living proof of that. This all or nothing pardigm is yours, not mine.

In addition to the above, people are totally responsible for their own behavior, and are responsible for pursuing their own outcomes. That is what living in freedom is all about. But I have problems with lefty's because their answer is always limiting somebody else's freedoms to right a perceived wrong. Look. You want textbook answers. And are repulsed by common sense. That's your choice. But the world is a truly living classroom. When I went to college I learned alot about living on my own. And I learned that some things are just pushed on the students. It was always the lower division general ed.coursework that was pushed/mandated on the student despite major field of study. Mine being in engineering. And it was always pseudo-marxist in nature. And you rationalize alot like those professors by throwing up things which challenge notions of common sense and attempt to blur the lines of reality. You try and seperate people from their own responsibilities by providing excuses for their failures. I'm not saying you are like them, but yes, you sound like them.

[P_Funk]

Anyway, I'm repeating myself here. But nobody says you can't have other ideas. But I have a problem with ideas which limit the freedom of others. That's the essence of left-wing views. Using the government as a means to correct perceived "injustices". And in doing so, controlling people's property, and perhaps redistributing other people's property to correct social inequalities. This is wrongheaded totally. And yes, it seems that most of the time class envy is a motivator or a tool pushed by politicians to get people to give them power. So we hear things like "the rich not paying their fair share" despite the rich actually paying the bulk of all income taxes. We get luxury taxes on items...like my own boat because dopes down the road don't have one. And they've employed government by their votes to enact one on me. :nope: If you can't see the class envy in politics, I don't think you're looking very hard for it. It's in broad daylight there. That basically boils down to your interpretation of the essense of left-wing ideas. Left-wing ideas, to put them all in one big gravy boat of anti-goodness, are pursued because of an interpretation that the status quo is a contributor to the limitation of freedom. You can disagree with the practise of many iterations of left wing ideas, communism being the dead horse oft flogged, but the basic premise of them is not the elimination of freedom. Speaking specifically of taxes, many people claim that the rich already pay more than their share since their contributions to the pool of tax revenue is so large in figures. However looking at the proportion of disposable income available to average people versus those who have more (such as in the millions+) the 'rich' don't pay nearly as much, proportionally, as the average person. And even Adam Smith, father of the free market so they say, said that the Rich should pay at least as much proportionally, and even more hopefully, to support the government in maintaining the necessities of society. Here we would diverge into another thread headed by wastegate about the role of government in society.

So the concept of taxation of the rich in such a great way isn't so alien or new.

Yes, criminals choose crime. There are other choices to make, despite hard times. I think your portrayal of poor people being more inclined to criminality is insulting in a way. You are attacking my roots. Nobody, in America at least, is trapped in poverty. There are ways out. I'm living proof of that. This all or nothing pardigm is yours, not mine. Portrayal that poor are more inclined to crime? That was yours. Stating that people ought to work rather than choose crime. So being a criminal and being poor was your connection, not mine. And in fact it is true to a degree, poverty ridden areas are laden with crime, compared to more affluent areas. Thats a reality well documented. How can you criticize those who choose crime over success and then turn it on me that I'm insulting them when I rebuff your own remarks?

[Sea Demon]

Speaking specifically of taxes, many people claim that the rich already pay more than their share since their contributions to the pool of tax revenue is so large in figures. However looking at the proportion of disposable income available to average people versus those who have more (such as in the millions+) the 'rich' don't pay nearly as much, proportionally, as the average person. And even Adam Smith, father of the free market so they say, said that the Rich should pay at least as much proportionally, and even more hopefully, to support the government in maintaining the necessities of society. Here we would diverge into another thread headed by wastegate about the role of government in society.

So the concept of taxation of the rich in such a great way isn't so alien or new.

Yeah, but the bottom 50% are paying only 3% of all income taxes now. And they also qualify for tax-payer ripoffs like WIC, and the EITC which are basically giveaways. The middle class to rich are the ones keeping the ship afloat. What you suggest is punitive, because you think the current system doesn't hurt those who have more income. You seem to want to correct a perceived inequity with the power of government confiscation. That's tyranny friend. Which is, you seem to want to limit the freedom of those who make more. You basically want to limit success and punish innovation. You want to depress investment by eliminating incentive. Well history shows that when you do that, job growth and economic growth as a whole slows. You wish to punish those who are actually at the forefront of economic growth and job creation. This is why I say, lefties worry too much about other people's success. They got their noses in everyone's chili. I say mind your own damn business and focus on your own life. And take responsibility for your own outcome. (Not you personally). This is why I say those on the left are wrongheaded about any tax policy. Because it all seems to be about punishing acheivement, empowering government over people's lives, and the limitation of freedom. You've proven that with your own words.

Portrayal that poor are more inclined to crime? That was yours. Stating that people ought to work rather than choose crime. So being a criminal and being poor was your connection, not mine. And in fact it is true to a degree, poverty ridden areas are laden with crime, compared to more affluent areas. Thats a reality well documented. How can you criticize those who choose crime over success and then turn it on me that I'm insulting them when I rebuff your own remarks?

Nope. I said choosing crime will usually limit your success and acheivement. That is, failure is a result of choosing criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is not a result of being poor or failing at anything. You got it backwards. Could it possibly be that criminal types can only afford poorer, more depressed areas because they are, well, poor? Poor as a result of their bad choices? Poor as a result of being in and out of a jail cell rather than a school? So of course you see more crime in these areas. It's not ingrained...only that criminals (former/reformed) can only afford the low cost areas? But even they are free to pursue better education, tech school skills, etc. to lift themselves out of poverty if they wish to do so. Freedom, and the ability to succeed are great things. If we could only get alot more people to see the value in it.

[Letum]

Im just copy and pasteing my second post here really.....

I think you are wrong Sea Demon.
In an enviroment where everyone is competative, not everyone can be a winner,
even if everyone is equaly as good.

If every person in the world worked as hard as he/she could you would not end up with
everyone being a millionaire. You would still need the same amount of people scraping
s*** of the floor of the public conveniences.

The way to get more money is not to work hard; this is evident when you compare the
work loads of the rich and poor. The way to get rich is to control the means of
production whilst exploiting the workforce and both exploiting and manipulating the
consumers.

Those who actually work hard tend to be in the lower social and economic groups and
have a tendency to die young of industrial related illness.

It is quite clearly exploitation and manipulation of others that gets money, not hard
work.
In Europe, the rise of unions and strict control of enterprise via regulation, tax and
fines as well as compulsory competition has attempted to both restrict the explotive and manipulative
power of corporations and counter it by allowing the customer and employee to
manipulate the cooperation to some extent.
Both business and personal, tax plays a vital role in this; both the extraction and
allocation of those tax funds.

[Sailor Steve]

It's not a case of a few people imposing morality on the rest because it is what has
been voted for by the majority in every social democracy in Europe.
Granted, that's a imposition by oligarchy, but that's democracy for you.
I can't and won't argue with that, and I'm not implying that people can't use their government for good purposes. While in America I feel that things like government-instituted health care are better kept at the lower State levels (I hear Hawaii's is very good) and don't want to see it at the Federal level, I agree that something can and should be done.

Here in Utah the main services are privately run (the Catholic church, believe it or not, is the main provider for the homeless [trust me on this one]).

I said taxes are necessary, but they're still evil. The opposite is also true: taxes may be evil, but they are still necessary. I just believe that if someone doesn't want to help, you have no right to force him to. If you can do that, try all you want to convince yourself, but you have no freedom. At all.

[SUBMAN1]

To Letum - I have yet to personally know a wealthy person (And there are a ton in my family and their friends) that doesn't put in massively long days and works their skin to the bone. That is how they got wealthy in the first place. Show me a CEO that doesn't work 12+ hours a day.

Rich people however are not wealthy people. They inherited their riches and will someday turn poor given they don't work to stay rich. So basically, your argument has a friggen big hole in it.

The point is, you simplify what is not simple and that is simply not possible. People do not get wealthy sitting on their *ss like you describe. Maybe in a communist nation they do, but not in America. You get out what you put in here. That is why everyone wants to come to this country.

http://forum.osnn.net/avatars/avatar3998_13.gif

-S

[Fish]

Hillary Quote (http://hegemonic.org/2007/10/13/hillary-quote/)


What will a Hillary Presidency be like?“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…Government has to make those choices for people” ~Hillary Clinton (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)

If that doesn’t give you a good idea, this quote may help…“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you … We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. ~Explaining her opposition to President Bush’s tax cut in San Francisco (28 June 2004) (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040629-0007-ca-clintons-sanfrancisco.html)


1 It has nothing to do with this tax topic.

2 It's hearsay , Rep. Dennis Hastert.

3 It's just one line out of a long quote. :down:

Disclaimer: I am not a Hilary Clinton adept.

[Fish]

“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…Government has to make those choices for people”
I would think that is true now more than ever. Mr and Mrs Average Knucklehead are more interested in who got flushed off "Dancing with the Stars" than hearing candidates in a political debate. The media will take their slant and focus on whatever dirt gets them better ratings.

C'mon, Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton get more attention from the media and American public than Clinton, Obama or any other political hopeful.

Don't believe me? Stand around the water cooler sometime and just listen to what people are discussing... betcha it ain't politics bubba...

And you want the public to make "informed decisions"? :rotfl:

Read this. :smug:


I have this ongoing discussion with a longtime reader who also just so happens to be a longtime Oakland high school teacher, a wonderful guy who's seen generations of teens come and generations go and who has a delightful poetic sensibility and quirky outlook on his life and his family and his beloved teaching career.

And he often writes to me in response to something I might've written about the youth of today, anything where I comment on the various nefarious factors shaping their minds and their perspectives and whether or not, say, EMFs and junk food and cell phones are melting their brains and what can be done and just how bad it might all be.
His response: It is not bad at all. It's absolutely horrifying.
My friend often summarizes for me what he sees, firsthand, every day and every month, year in and year out, in his classroom. He speaks not merely of the sad decline in overall intellectual acumen among students over the years, not merely of the astonishing spread of lazy slackerhood, or the fact that cell phones and iPods and excess TV exposure are, absolutely and without reservation, short-circuiting the minds of the upcoming generations. Of this, he says, there is zero doubt.
Nor does he speak merely of the notion that kids these days are overprotected and wussified (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/DDB9SQVJ3.DTL) and don't spend enough time outdoors (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/22/MN15SJ64U.DTL) and don't get any real exercise and therefore can't, say, identify basic plants, or handle a tool, or build, well, anything at all. Again, these things are a given. Widely reported, tragically ignored, nothing new.
No, my friend takes it all a full step — or rather, leap — further. It is not merely a sad slide. It is not just a general dumbing down. It is far uglier than that.
We are, as far as urban public education is concerned, essentially at rock bottom. We are now at a point where we are essentially churning out ignorant teens who are becoming ignorant adults and society as a whole will pay dearly, very soon, and if you think the hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemmings have been bad for the soul of this country, just wait.
It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.
Now, you may think he's merely a curmudgeon, a tired old teacher who stopped caring long ago. Not true. Teaching is his life. He says he loves his students, loves education and learning and watching young minds awaken. Problem is, he is seeing much less of it. It's a bit like the melting of the polar ice caps. Sure, there's been alarmist data about it for years, but until you see it for yourself, the deep visceral dread doesn't really hit home.
He cites studies, reports, hard data, from the appalling effects of television on child brain development (i.e.; any TV exposure before 6 years old and your kid's basic cognitive wiring and spatial perceptions are pretty much scrambled for life), to the fact that, because of all the insidious mandatory testing teachers are now forced to incorporate into the curriculum, of the 182 school days in a year, there are 110 when such testing is going on somewhere at Oakland High. As one of his colleagues put it, "It's like weighing a calf twice a day, but never feeding it."
But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year, noting all the obvious evidence of teens' decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words "agriculture," or even "democracy." Not a single student could do it.
It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school students he estimates he's taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently, after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler.
It is, in short, nothing less than a tidal wave of dumb, with once-passionate, increasingly exasperated teachers like my friend nearly powerless to stop it. The worst part: It's not the kids' fault. They're merely the victims of a horribly failed educational system.
Then our discussion often turns to the meat of it, the bigger picture, the ugly and unavoidable truism about the lack of need among the government and the power elite in this nation to create a truly effective educational system, one that actually generates intelligent, thoughtful, articulate citizens.
Hell, why should they? After all, the dumber the populace, the easier it is to rule and control and launch unwinnable wars and pass laws telling them that sex is bad and TV is good and God knows all, so just pipe down and eat your Taco Bell Double-Supremo Burrito and be glad we don't arrest you for posting dirty pictures on your cute little blog.
This is about when I try to offer counterevidence, a bit of optimism. For one thing, I've argued generational relativity (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/02/28/notes022807.DTL) in this space before, suggesting maybe kids are no scarier or dumber or more dangerous than they've ever been, and that maybe some of the problem is merely the same old awkward generation gap, with every current generation absolutely convinced the subsequent one is terrifically stupid and malicious and will be the end of society as a whole. Just the way it always seems.
I also point out how, despite all the evidence of total public-education meltdown, I keep being surprised, keep hearing from/about teens and youth movements and actions that impress the hell out of me. Damn kids made the Internet what it is today, fer chrissakes. Revolutionized media. Broke all the rules. Still are.
Hell, some of the best designers, writers, artists, poets, chefs, and so on that I meet are in their early to mid-20s. And the nation's top universities are still managing, despite a factory-churning mentality, to crank out young minds of astonishing ability and acumen. How did these kids do it? How did they escape the horrible public school system? How did they avoid the great dumbing down of America? Did they never see a TV show until they hit puberty? Were they all born and raised elsewhere, in India and Asia and Russia? Did they all go to Waldorf or Montessori and eat whole-grain breads and play with firecrackers and take long walks in wild nature? Are these kids flukes? Exceptions? Just lucky?
My friend would say, well, yes, that's precisely what most of them are. Lucky, wealthy, foreign-born, private-schooled ... and increasingly rare. Most affluent parents in America — and many more who aren't — now put their kids in private schools from day one, and the smart ones give their kids no TV and minimal junk food and no video games. (Of course, this in no way guarantees a smart, attuned kid, but compared to the odds of success in the public school system, it sure seems to help). This covers about, what, 3 percent of the populace?
As for the rest, well, the dystopian evidence seems overwhelming indeed, to the point where it might be no stretch at all to say the biggest threat facing America is perhaps not global warming, not perpetual warmongering, not garbage food or low-level radiation or way too much Lindsay Lohan, but a populace far too ignorant to know how to properly manage any of it, much less change it all for the better. What, too fatalistic? Don't worry. Soon enough, no one will know what the word even means.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/10/24/notes102407.DTL

[Letum]

To Letum - I have yet to personally know a wealthy person (And there are a ton in my family and their friends) that doesn't put in massively long days and works their skin to the bone. That is how they got wealthy in the first place. Show me a CEO that doesn't work 12+ hours a day.

Rich people however are not wealthy people. They inherited their riches and will someday turn poor given they don't work to stay rich. So basically, your argument has a friggen big hole in it.

The point is, you simplify what is not simple and that is simply not possible. People do not get wealthy sitting on their *ss like you describe. Maybe in a communist nation they do, but not in America. You get out what you put in here. That is why everyone wants to come to this country.


-S


I can post as many examples of poor people working to death for rich employers who
are not. Including a few relations of mine.
For the best examples see England before the late and post Victorian social reforms.
It is ridiculous to argue that wealth is a product of hard work.
In many cases hard work may be necessary for wealth, but that is very different.


In short:
It is totally impossible for everyone to achieve wealth through hard work in a system
where the means of production or service are, to all intents and purposes, owned by
a minority in a competitive system.

This isn't in it's self a bad thing.



I said taxes are necessary, but they're still evil.

I can see the logic you have got there....

1) Taxes take money away from people.
2) Taking money away from people is evil.
3) Therefore tax is evil.

and

1) Taxes pay for [military/government/roads/whatever else].
2) [military/government/roads/whatever else] is necessary.
3) Tax is therefore necessary.

Conclusion: taxes are necessary, but evil.

That all makes sense.
"Taxes are bad, but they do good."

That would lead us to conclude that there is a balancing act to be made. At some point
the bad that taxes do will be equal to the good that they do and that is the point where
taxation should stop.

I don't disagree, but it still leaves the amount of taxation as more or less subjective
and I suspect it is the location of the point where the good outweighs the bad that we
disagree upon.

[Sea Demon]

"Taxes are bad, but they do good."

That would lead us to conclude that there is a balancing act to be made.

The problem over here is that tax dollars are often used to buy votes and create goverenment dependancy. I suspect it may be similar over there unfortunately.

[Letum]

"Taxes are bad, but they do good."

That would lead us to conclude that there is a balancing act to be made.
The problem over here is that tax dollars are often used to buy votes and create government dependency. I suspect it may be similar over there unfortunately.
Well, you cant use tax...err...pounds to fun your election bid.
The money from that has to come from either the party's funds or personal funds.
A lot of the money comes from large private donations. Recently this has caused
contrivers because some of the benefactor's have got titles after a donation.

The indirect route to buy voters with tax is to sedgiest that those reviving money
might receive more. However, as those receiving are in a huge minority to tax payers;
this would be political suicide.

As far as government dependency goes, there are plenty of people dependant on the
government for food and housing as a result of high local unemployment, illness,
disability or full time dependants (.etc).
There is a logic to saying that if these people could not get help, then less of them
would end up in a situation where they needed help. (Clearly this does not apply to
all of them).
However, in practice the number of ill, unemployed and/or people with full-time dependants
(etc.) shows no good collection to the amount of social welfare projects when different
countries are compared.

[Sailor Steve]

I can see the logic you have got there....

1) Taxes take money away from people.
2) Taking money away from people is evil.
3) Therefore tax is evil.

and

1) Taxes pay for [military/government/roads/whatever else].
2) [military/government/roads/whatever else] is necessary.
3) Tax is therefore necessary.

Conclusion: taxes are necessary, but evil.

That all makes sense.
"Taxes are bad, but they do good."

That would lead us to conclude that there is a balancing act to be made. At some point
the bad that taxes do will be equal to the good that they do and that is the point where
taxation should stop.

I don't disagree, but it still leaves the amount of taxation as more or less subjective
and I suspect it is the location of the point where the good outweighs the bad that we
disagree upon.
Of course a government can't run without money. I also see government as a necessary evil. My original point isn't that taxes can't be used for good, it's that the people in charge of making them and using them often see that if some is good, then more is better. It's THEM I want to see taxes as evil, so they don't run amok with someone else's life.

Of course this applies to both, any and all parties; they all have their "If I only had enough, I could save the world types".

Or, as with Blue Oyster Cult: "Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more".

[Letum]

My original point isn't that taxes can't be used for good.

I have to disagree strongly.
I can name thousands of good deeds made possible by the tax from almost any
country in the world.

[Sailor Steve]

My original point isn't that taxes can't be used for good.

I have to disagree strongly.
I can name thousands of good deeds made possible by the tax from almost any
country in the world.
You misread me. "My original point isn't that taxes can't be used for good..."

As in "My point is NOT that taxes etc..."

I know they can; I've seen many cases as well. Reread the rest of the sentence. I don't trust people who honestly believe they know better than I do what's good for me.

[waste gate]

I don't trust people who honestly believe they know better than I do what's good for me.

First they came for your cigarettes;
Then they came for your alcohol;
now they are coming for your food.

The nanny state. Someone always seems to know what is best for you! The arrogance of the left. Lets face it it is a left/progressive paradigm.

[Letum]

My original point isn't that taxes can't be used for good.
I have to disagree strongly.
I can name thousands of good deeds made possible by the tax from almost any
country in the world. You misread me. "My original point isn't that taxes can't be used for good..."

As in "My point is NOT that taxes etc..."

I know they can; I've seen many cases as well. Reread the rest of the sentence. I don't trust people who honestly believe they know better than I do what's good for me.


:doh: So I did! Sorry!

[P_Funk]

I don't trust people who honestly believe they know better than I do what's good for me.
First they came for your cigarettes;
Then they came for your alcohol;
now they are coming for your food.

The nanny state. Someone always seems to know what is best for you! The arrogance of the left. Lets face it it is a left/progressive paradigm.
I think you're not giving the right credit for their own paradigm. The military budget of the US that balooned in the days of Reagan and out does the other 12 largest budgets combined (figures from a few years ago that I remember so I'm not sure what the actual one is today) and which created a massive deficit, which was again brought on by Bush Jr. is a far greater waste of tax dollars than any of the leftist nanny state policies. And historically right wing governments have violated the creed of the balanced budget far more and in much greater excess than most leftist governments.