|
Post by omaha on Apr 16, 2011 15:59:19 GMT -5
Todd, you might want to take a look at the FairTax proposal. The thumbnail version is that the FairTax would eliminate all corporate and individual income taxes, FICA tax and Medicare tax and replace them with a national sales tax (calculated at 23% in order to be "revenue neutral). Along with that, people would receive a monthly "prebate", based on the size of their family, equal to 23% of the poverty level income. For example, for a family of four, the poverty level is currently right around $22,000 annually. So a family of four would receive a monthly prebate of about $420.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 16, 2011 16:04:12 GMT -5
The idea (that Obama is pushing) that someone else can be taxed to pay for generous programs is corrosive to society. Obama is saying that the "average" person should, over a life time, expect more from government than he puts in. That should be shameful. Unless we restore the notion that carrying one's own weight is a civic virtue, this debate will be lost. Putting aside the matter of whether Obama is actually "saying" that about who should expect what from government, that last sentence (particularly as set up by the one preceding) seems to imply that everyone can "carry one's own weight" under all circumstances and that it's shameful not to. Anyone who has had to watch out for the welfare of an elderly parent or been the custodian of a severely handicapped family member would probably have something to say about that. In my view, the shame does not accrue to those who, through no fault of their own, cannot pass the "carry your own weight" test.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 16, 2011 16:12:05 GMT -5
Lets get back to semantic precision.
There is no doubt (in fact its self-evident) that every individual will have periods of time in his life where he is dependent on others. The day he is born, for example. And later in life, perhaps.
But that fact in no way invalidates the principle that each individual, over the arc of his life, should aspire to be a net contributor to society. Public policy, to the extent it serves to shape a culture. should have that baked in as its bedrock assumption. Anything less can only serve to encourage a culture of dependency.
Yes, there are some people who, through singular misfortune, will never achieve that goal. But, just as the children of Lake Wobegon can not all be above average, neither can the citizens of a nation all be below average.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Apr 16, 2011 16:16:11 GMT -5
I think there is a very popular thought in this country that there is a moral and character flaw in people that results in them being poor.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 16, 2011 16:17:32 GMT -5
The idea (that Obama is pushing) that someone else can be taxed to pay for generous programs is corrosive to society. Obama is saying that the "average" person should, over a life time, expect more from government than he puts in. That should be shameful. Unless we restore the notion that carrying one's own weight is a civic virtue, this debate will be lost. Putting aside the matter of whether Obama is actually "saying" that about who should expect what from government, that last sentence (particularly as set up by the one preceding) seems to imply that everyone can "carry one's own weight" under all circumstances and that it's shameful not to. Anyone who has had to watch out for the welfare of an elderly parent or been the custodian of a severely handicapped family member would probably have something to say about that. In my view, the shame does not accrue to those who, through no fault of their own, cannot pass the "carry your own weight" test. but shame should accrue to those who could carry something and do not.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 16, 2011 16:19:07 GMT -5
I think there is a very popular thought in this country that there is a moral and character flaw in people that results in them being poor. Is your comment in any way related to my postings?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 16, 2011 16:20:20 GMT -5
I think there is a very popular thought in this country that there is a moral and character flaw in people that results in them being poor. there is a moral and character flaw that makes some people rich, apparently, at least in liberal theology.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 16, 2011 17:02:54 GMT -5
"And, off-hand, I can't think of a single election that has been won by somebody promising to raise taxes. " Ed Rendell, (D) of Pennsylvania promised to raise taxes if elected and after he was in office raised taxes. Pennsylvania now has a Republican governor. You should have heard the moaning, by Democrats, when Rendell actually did what he said he'd do. Me, I left the state. Rendell then became Democratic Comittee Chairman, supported Hillary and got Obama elected, so he's left that post and works for NBC now I think. Maybe for every three or four Michael Dukakises there is an Ed Rendell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 17:50:56 GMT -5
Hmmm. Looks like a headlong rush back to Social Darwinism and the Gilded Age.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 16, 2011 18:04:14 GMT -5
Hmmm. Looks like a headlong rush back to Social Darwinism and the Gilded Age. It's tough to have a Gilded Age when you're flat out of gold.
|
|
|
Post by paulschlimm on Apr 16, 2011 18:27:00 GMT -5
Thanks, Todd!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 18:30:19 GMT -5
Hmmm. Looks like a headlong rush back to Social Darwinism and the Gilded Age. It's tough to have a Gilded Age when you're flat out of gold. That would be true, except that Mark Twain (who originated the Gilded Age phrase) meant it as a commentary and criticism on the turn-of-the-century era that looked like a golden age to the wealthy and powerful, but wasn't for the vast majority of the population.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Apr 16, 2011 18:51:46 GMT -5
Well, now that we have the liberal take on things... which we all already knew anyway. Cool. I await the positive spin on the data. the usual take is trickle down. You give the top room to breathe (loosely translated; lower their share of the tax burden) and they will invest it all in America creating jobs and prosperity for us all. Been doing that for a few decades now. How's that working for you? Tim
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 16, 2011 18:59:22 GMT -5
It's tough to have a Gilded Age when you're flat out of gold. That would be true, except that Mark Twain (who originated the Gilded Age phrase) meant it as a commentary and criticism on the turn-of-the-century era that looked like a golden age to the wealthy and powerful, but wasn't for the vast majority of the population. And after a hundred years of "Progressiveism" anything look much different?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 16, 2011 19:02:47 GMT -5
Well, now that we have the liberal take on things... which we all already knew anyway. Cool. I await the positive spin on the data. the usual take is trickle down. You give the top room to breathe (loosely translated; lower their share of the tax burden) and they will invest it all in America creating jobs and prosperity for us all. Been doing that for a few decades now. How's that working for you? Tim Well, Tim, it was working pretty well for me there for awhile. Just lately, as we sink back toward 1978, no so good. I still refuse to return to the liberal ideology of my youth and adopt your theology that anyone with any money should tithe it to the liberal church so you folks can feel better about aiding the poor, who have become poorer since the war on poverty scam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 19:27:21 GMT -5
That would be true, except that Mark Twain (who originated the Gilded Age phrase) meant it as a commentary and criticism on the turn-of-the-century era that looked like a golden age to the wealthy and powerful, but wasn't for the vast majority of the population. And after a hundred years of "Progressiveism" anything look much different? Well, actually, yes. Thanks to those rotten liberals we have unemployment compensation, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and others of those programs that the Tea Party desparately wants to get rid of. Once we do get rid of those programs that just create lazy louts we'll be able to solve the servant problem. And, of course, we'll outlaw unions too so that we can force those slackers to earn an honest dollar. A dollar - that's about right. ;D Btw, how do you think people lived before these reforms that Democrats implemented? Yep, in the old days we called it Social Darwinism. Today we call it the Republican party. ;D
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 16, 2011 20:41:16 GMT -5
And after a hundred years of "Progressiveism" anything look much different? Well, actually, yes. Thanks to those rotten liberals we have unemployment compensation, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and others of those programs that the Tea Party desparately wants to get rid of. Once we do get rid of those programs that just create lazy louts we'll be able to solve the servant problem. And, of course, we'll outlaw unions too so that we can force those slackers to earn an honest dollar. A dollar - that's about right. ;D Btw, how do you think people lived before these reforms that Democrats implemented? Yep, in the old days we called it Social Darwinism. Today we call it the Republican party. ;D True. And thanks to those same liberals we've got a debt rapidly approaching 100% of GDP, something that neither Mark Twain nor anybody else has ever seen, period. In the old days we called that irresponsible. Today we call it the democratic party.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Apr 16, 2011 21:19:04 GMT -5
Actually we have a debt because both parties figured out it was easy to spend more than you made in order to get re-elected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 21:34:58 GMT -5
Well, actually, yes. Thanks to those rotten liberals we have unemployment compensation, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and others of those programs that the Tea Party desparately wants to get rid of. Once we do get rid of those programs that just create lazy louts we'll be able to solve the servant problem. And, of course, we'll outlaw unions too so that we can force those slackers to earn an honest dollar. A dollar - that's about right. ;D Btw, how do you think people lived before these reforms that Democrats implemented? Yep, in the old days we called it Social Darwinism. Today we call it the Republican party. ;D True. And thanks to those same liberals we've got a debt rapidly approaching 100% of GDP, something that neither Mark Twain nor anybody else has ever seen, period. In the old days we called that irresponsible. Today we call it the democratic party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 21:37:14 GMT -5
Well, actually, yes. Thanks to those rotten liberals we have unemployment compensation, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and others of those programs that the Tea Party desparately wants to get rid of. Once we do get rid of those programs that just create lazy louts we'll be able to solve the servant problem. And, of course, we'll outlaw unions too so that we can force those slackers to earn an honest dollar. A dollar - that's about right. ;D Btw, how do you think people lived before these reforms that Democrats implemented? Yep, in the old days we called it Social Darwinism. Today we call it the Republican party. ;D True. And thanks to those same liberals we've got a debt rapidly approaching 100% of GDP, something that neither Mark Twain nor anybody else has ever seen, period. In the old days we called that irresponsible. Today we call it the democratic party. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy "job creators" added 2 trillion to the debt. That would also seem to be irresponsible.
|
|