Income and Insight

[topspin]

why is it the conservatives post at nausium on stopping welfare but not the trillions on wars??? Is taxation really the issue?

 

[antagon]

why is it the conservatives post at nausium on stopping welfare but not the trillions on wars??? Is taxation really the issue?

welfare costs a lot more.

neoconservatism is big on international interventionism and preemptive war. they feel that american tax dollars should be spent in other countries with social returns on investment preferred to economic returns. the movement has changed and gained momentum from its position within the left-center to now dominating right-wing foreign and economic policy.

with regard to economics, the movement is clueless about the idea of domestic investment and fiscal discipline. because they've simplified the dynamic economy of the united states to the rate of income taxation, the effects of the rate of tax on the deficit is an issue, indeed.

 

[Foxfyre]

why is it the conservatives post at nausium on stopping welfare but not the trillions on wars??? Is taxation really the issue?

Perhaps it isn't that conservaives post ad nausuem on stopping welfare but that conservatives don't accept the unthinking accolades that liberals sometimes heap on welfare. Perhaps it is that conservatives are at least sometimes able to look past the very occasional apparent success story to see the big picture and how corrupting and destructive welfare can be both for those in government and for the recipients of it. Perhaps conservatives are able to acknowledge that perhaps the existing system is not the best way to help people in the long run. Perhaps conservatives are able to see that there are often better and more effective ways to demonstrate compassion without one size fits all, expensive, corrupting, wasteful, and often counterproductive big government programs.

And perhaps conservatives are able to see that welfare and wars are two separate things.

And perhaps conservatives are able to see that welfare is a logical component of discussion in an OP thesis noting that low income people approve of the current Administration/government in higher numbers than do people in higher income brackets.

And taxes are not the only issue but they are a factor.

 

[Bfgrn]

why is it the conservatives post at nausium on stopping welfare but not the trillions on wars??? Is taxation really the issue?

Perhaps it isn't that conservaives post ad nausuem on stopping welfare but that conservatives don't accept the unthinking accolades that liberals sometimes heap on welfare. Perhaps it is that conservatives are at least sometimes able to look past the very occasional apparent success story to see the big picture and how corrupting and destructive welfare can be both for those in government and for the recipients of it. Perhaps conservatives are able to acknowledge that perhaps the existing system is not the best way to help people in the long run. Perhaps conservatives are able to see that there are often better and more effective ways to demonstrate compassion without one size fits all, expensive, corrupting, wasteful, and often counterproductive big government programs.

And perhaps conservatives are able to see that welfare and wars are two separate things.

And perhaps conservatives are able to see that welfare is a logical component of discussion in an OP thesis noting that low income people approve of the current Administration/government in higher numbers than do people in higher income brackets.

And taxes are not the only issue but they are a factor.

why is it the conservatives post at nausium on stopping welfare but not the trillions on wars??? Is taxation really the issue?

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Just another of the continuing examples...

I've yet to talk to a 'conservative' who makes a case for OTHERS. Every diatribe and argument always boils down to their 3 priories; ME, MYSELF and I.

When LBJ gave Sargent Shriver the responsibility of running the war on poverty, one of the first realities he discovered...more than half the human being that lived in poverty were children; dependents in the truest sense of the word.

Conservative solutions always sound so great. But the arguments for social programs that have helped millions of people were made many years ago. We don't hear them anymore. So the conservative argument only gives you one side; theirs (singular). They never attempt to hypothesize what the consequences 'would have been' had those programs been defeated. They always create a great nobility to their 'cause' but they are always missing the KEY component, human capital. When you question their solutions and carry them to an end, it always requires some group of human beings to evaporate. And it is never THEM.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Foxfyre]

Well you might call it selfishness Bfgrn. But conservatives consider charity that which helps people, and calls that which ultimately hurts people something else.

Remembe the lipstick on the pig analogy? You still have a pig? You can put noble sounding labels and high sounding descriptions on government programs and pretend that is sufficient to absolve your conscience of any further responsibility.

But conservatives can see that no matter how well intended, expensive, indulgent, even corrupt programs that don't accomplish what they are intended to accomplish and that produce unintended negative consequences are a waste of both resources and people.

Meanwhile when it comes of giving of their own selves and resources for the benefit of others, conservatives as a group remain more charitable, compassionate, and benevolent than liberals as a group, so to say that 'conservative' is synonymous with 'liberal' is perhaps liberals putting a spin on it to mask their own selfishnmess?

. . . .Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. . . .
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Conservatives are not being selfish when they question government programs that presumably help the 'poor'. They are simply in being practical in how allocation of resources actually affects people and how best to look at those resources so that the best possible good is accomplished.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well you might call it selfishness Bfgrn. But conservatives consider charity that which helps people, and calls that which ultimately hurts people something else.

Remembe the lipstick on the pig analogy? You still have a pig? You can put noble sounding labels and high sounding descriptions on government programs and pretend that is sufficient to absolve your conscience of any further responsibility.

But conservatives can see that no matter how well intended, expensive, indulgent, even corrupt programs that don't accomplish what they are intended to accomplish and that produce unintended negative consequences are a waste of both resources and people.

Meanwhile when it comes of giving of their own selves and resources for the benefit of others, conservatives as a group remain more charitable, compassionate, and benevolent than liberals as a group, so to say that 'conservative' is synonymous with 'liberal' is perhaps liberals putting a spin on it to mask their own selfishnmess?

. . . .Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. . . .
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Conservatives are not being selfish when they question government programs that presumably help the 'poor'. They are simply in being practical in how allocation of resources actually affects people and how best to look at those resources so that the best possible good is accomplished.

I'm sorry Foxfyre, I'm not buying. I have lived almost 60 years. It has taught me to be able to smell the difference between chocolate and dogshit without tasting it.

I'd like to believe you. And personally, you may be a compassionate conservative. But you would represent an anomaly, not a standard. What I constantly hear and see from the right and 'conservatives' is the constant language of dehumanization and racial overtones. If you are truly compassionate, you don't think that way or talk that way. Maybe when you 'compassionate' conservatives start shouting down and criticizing those voices and those attitudes, I will begin to change my view.

The lipstick on the pig is your charity argument. If handouts create dependency, then how is charity ANY different? It all comes back to my original argument. If you believe handouts create dependency, then your charity is done for YOU, not others.

 

[midcan5]

Anyone older than twelve knows income does not in any way equate to insight, if insight means a reasonable understanding of the state of affairs. Next silly analogy.


"PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama averaged 57% job approval during his first year in office. Compared with the first-year averages of other presidents elected to office since World War II, Obama's average ranks on the low end, tied with Ronald Reagan's, but better than Bill Clinton's historical low of 49%."

Obama Averages 57% Approval in First Year in Office

 

[Foxfyre]

Well you might call it selfishness Bfgrn. But conservatives consider charity that which helps people, and calls that which ultimately hurts people something else.

Remembe the lipstick on the pig analogy? You still have a pig? You can put noble sounding labels and high sounding descriptions on government programs and pretend that is sufficient to absolve your conscience of any further responsibility.

But conservatives can see that no matter how well intended, expensive, indulgent, even corrupt programs that don't accomplish what they are intended to accomplish and that produce unintended negative consequences are a waste of both resources and people.

Meanwhile when it comes of giving of their own selves and resources for the benefit of others, conservatives as a group remain more charitable, compassionate, and benevolent than liberals as a group, so to say that 'conservative' is synonymous with 'liberal' is perhaps liberals putting a spin on it to mask their own selfishnmess?

. . . .Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. . . .
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Conservatives are not being selfish when they question government programs that presumably help the 'poor'. They are simply in being practical in how allocation of resources actually affects people and how best to look at those resources so that the best possible good is accomplished.

I'm sorry Foxfyre, I'm not buying. I have lived almost 60 years. It has taught me to be able to smell the difference between chocolate and dogshit without tasting it.

I'd like to believe you. And personally, you may be a compassionate conservative. But you would represent an anomaly, not a standard. What I constantly hear and see from the right and 'conservatives' is the constant language of dehumanization and racial overtones. If you are truly compassionate, you don't think that way or talk that way. Maybe when you 'compassionate' conservatives start shouting down and criticizing those voices and those attitudes, I will begin to change my view.

The lipstick on the pig is your charity argument. If handouts create dependency, then how is charity ANY different? It all comes back to my original argument. If you believe handouts create dependency, then your charity is done for YOU, not others.

I'll admit that I frankly don't understand how somebody can live almost 60 years and think like you do. How you can get to be almost 60 years old and completely blow off a study such as Arthur Brooks completed and that has been supported by numerous other similar studies. I can assure you that I am no anomaly but am very typical among conservatives.

I don't understand how anybody can look objectively at the US welfare system--'welfare' in this case meaning ALL benefices, charity, help programs, etc. run by the Federal government--and not see the waste, the graft, the lack of results, the unintended bad consequences, and/or the inevitable corruption among both those dispensing the charity and those receiving it.

Handouts don't create dependency unless they are made entitlements in one size fits all government programs. Such programs, however, invariably create dependencies.

Charity is the hallmark of a moral society and Americans are the most charitable and generous of all people. And that is why it is mostly conservatives who are on the front lines running and manning the orphanages, leper colonies, soup kitchens, food pantries, thrift shops, homeless shelters, treatment centers, halfway houses, mission programs to some of the world's most desperate people, etc.

The difference between the conservative point of view and the big government liberal point of view is that the conservative does not seek to salve his conscience by turning it over to government and washing his hands of any responsibility for the problems. And the conservative doesn't deceive himself that turning it over to the government is either effective or sufficient.

Why not look at it from the perspective of what is most effective and profitable for those that need help rather than a knee jerk mindset that it is the government's job and anybody who doesn't see it that way is a self centered selfish jerk?

 

[Bfgrn]

Well you might call it selfishness Bfgrn. But conservatives consider charity that which helps people, and calls that which ultimately hurts people something else.

Remembe the lipstick on the pig analogy? You still have a pig? You can put noble sounding labels and high sounding descriptions on government programs and pretend that is sufficient to absolve your conscience of any further responsibility.

But conservatives can see that no matter how well intended, expensive, indulgent, even corrupt programs that don't accomplish what they are intended to accomplish and that produce unintended negative consequences are a waste of both resources and people.

Meanwhile when it comes of giving of their own selves and resources for the benefit of others, conservatives as a group remain more charitable, compassionate, and benevolent than liberals as a group, so to say that 'conservative' is synonymous with 'liberal' is perhaps liberals putting a spin on it to mask their own selfishnmess?



Conservatives are not being selfish when they question government programs that presumably help the 'poor'. They are simply in being practical in how allocation of resources actually affects people and how best to look at those resources so that the best possible good is accomplished.

I'm sorry Foxfyre, I'm not buying. I have lived almost 60 years. It has taught me to be able to smell the difference between chocolate and dogshit without tasting it.

I'd like to believe you. And personally, you may be a compassionate conservative. But you would represent an anomaly, not a standard. What I constantly hear and see from the right and 'conservatives' is the constant language of dehumanization and racial overtones. If you are truly compassionate, you don't think that way or talk that way. Maybe when you 'compassionate' conservatives start shouting down and criticizing those voices and those attitudes, I will begin to change my view.

The lipstick on the pig is your charity argument. If handouts create dependency, then how is charity ANY different? It all comes back to my original argument. If you believe handouts create dependency, then your charity is done for YOU, not others.

I'll admit that I frankly don't understand how somebody can live almost 60 years and think like you do. How you can get to be almost 60 years old and completely blow off a study such as Arthur Brooks completed and that has been supported by numerous other similar studies. I can assure you that I am no anomaly but am very typical among conservatives.

I don't understand how anybody can look objectively at the US welfare system--'welfare' in this case meaning ALL benefices, charity, help programs, etc. run by the Federal government--and not see the waste, the graft, the lack of results, the unintended bad consequences, and/or the inevitable corruption among both those dispensing the charity and those receiving it.

Handouts don't create dependency unless they are made entitlements in one size fits all government programs. Such programs, however, invariably create dependencies.

Charity is the hallmark of a moral society and Americans are the most charitable and generous of all people. And that is why it is mostly conservatives who are on the front lines running and manning the orphanages, leper colonies, soup kitchens, food pantries, thrift shops, homeless shelters, treatment centers, halfway houses, mission programs to some of the world's most desperate people, etc.

The difference between the conservative point of view and the big government liberal point of view is that the conservative does not seek to salve his conscience by turning it over to government and washing his hands of any responsibility for the problems. And the conservative doesn't deceive himself that turning it over to the government is either effective or sufficient.

Why not look at it from the perspective of what is most effective and profitable for those that need help rather than a knee jerk mindset that it is the government's job and anybody who doesn't see it that way is a self centered selfish jerk?

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

WOW Foxfyre, the 'superior moral justification' shit is starting to attract flies now. Where do you come up with this kind of shit??? ...'it is mostly conservatives who are on the front lines running and manning the orphanages, leper colonies, soup kitchens, food pantries, thrift shops, homeless shelters, treatment centers, halfway houses, mission programs to some of the world's most desperate people, etc.'

SO, it is mostly conservatives who are the community organizers like Obama?

If there are compassionate conservatives, they would be called Blue dog Democrats, because the Republican party has purged any compassion from their platform. You can't call yourself a compassionate conservative and continue to let the language of dehumanization and racial overtones define your movement. The Rush Limbaugh's playing on the air and GOP operatives sending out to fellow conservatives copies of 'Barack the magic negro'.

You don't support or remain silent when 'conservatives' like Tom Tancredo call President Obama a "socialist ideologue," who was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country. Or "People who could not spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House -- name is Barack Hussein Obama"

OR you don't say things like South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer told an audience in South Carolina that his grandmother told him "as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed."

He compared this to receiving assistance from the government, which he said is "facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

People WITH compassion DON'T think that way or talk that way and people that CALL themselves compassionate conservatives don't continue to support that kind of speech.

I didn't just fall off the back of a turnip truck. Don't keep trying to shit me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just keep telling yourself that Bfgrn. So far you have not refuted Brooks or anybody else. If you want a battle of quotations, I can go toe to toe with you on quotations. If you want a battle of long, tedious posts, I can match you tit for tat there. And if you want to keep repeating the same tired old partisan rhetoric with nothing but anecdotal evidence to support it, I can do that with the best of you.

But again, I prefer not to bore other members to death with such circular arguments that bore me silly as well.

So unless you have something of substance and can articulate a decent argument that isn't totally absurd, unsupportable, and ad hominem in your own words, I'll wish you a really good day and move on. Thank you so much for understanding.

 

[FA_Q2]

bfg
First of all, I would appreciate it if you would stop cutting up my posts. Second, I surmise you didn't check out my link and listen to the interview.

You clearly have some warped view of regulation. 'Government out of business' is the END of ANY regulation. You have some disconnect going on in your thinking. And you are dead wrong about insurance being sold across state lines not being a race to the bottom. It is not only a race to the bottom, it is mass deregulation.

No, if I have a comment that specifically relates to a piece of your post, I am going to quote just that piece. Your arguments are based on a supposition of my stance THAT DOES NOT EXIST. If you feel I have taken something out of context, then by all means place it here.

I am pulling this statement out for the reasons that I pulled the last one out. I have repeatedly stated that I am NOT for the elimination of all regulation and you CONTINUALLY paint that stance on me and then proceeded to attack it. Take your partisan straw men elsewhere, I am n to going debate this while you misrepresent what I am putting fourth.

 

[FA_Q2]

We need the social safety nets that are in place but what we are creating is not a net to catch those that cannot or will not perform but a net to capture the lower classes. That is where bfg's serfdom is coming from, the gradual building of a barrier between those dependant on the government and those that are not. As I said before, there are people that would LOOSE wealth if they began working or were to work more. The tax code and much of the welfare laws are poorly written. I win not advocate for a complete lack of protections for the poor but I cannot stand by a system that encourages people to stay poor and that is what is taking form. Nor will I stand by a system that rewards inaction or tells people that they need help when they do not.

to your earlier contention that neither communism nor socialism are aligned with the nature of humanity, consider that communal societies predated capitalist ones. it is not until you introduce surplus that you get specialization. from specialization you get trade, then currency, THEN capitalism begins to be feasible. add population and government to organize it, and capitalism begins to fail in it's ability to sustain society - to sustain itself. the government's role in managing currency in a way which supports capitalism, especially in a technological age, becomes more and more dependent on socialist mechanisms as a natural response to shoring up the freedoms and rewards of capitalism.

there are conditions, then, which all of these different systems are natural to humanity. the family unit remains a vestige of communal life which these other principles have made a mess of.

.....

i think that we've gone great distances to make capitalist principles work better within the broader economy and society. we've decided that unfettered capitalism fails in these objectives much like a motor with no car attached fails to be a valuable means of transportation. what about the fetters of socialism?

i dont believe that it's possible to eliminate the propensity for capitalism to benefit the greedy or socialism to benefit the slothful, however, regulations on capitalism have helped to curtail its end. socialistic policy has not been controlled to the same extent.

working with the system we've got, i would suggest some changes to take the perversions out of welfare:

for new registrants, or those who have 1 child and aren't pregnant, limit the benefits to the one-child level, then eliminate household income restrictions and restrictions on adults eligible to work in the household. a high child to parent ratio and a de facto single parent household incentive, makes the current clintonian workfair system difficult to enforce.

this reform might suffice for another decade or so, but the future will call for other innovations and reforms in capitalism, socialistic and communistic components of american life, in order to seed growth and strength in our economy. could we afford to dogmatically exclude any of these principles?

as to tax.. we did have a drawn out conversation, i believe. rather than dogma there, the good and bad of the tax system need to be seen for what they are. the current trend is for targetted taxation on industry, and an increase rather than decrease in exemptions and deductions.

i consider tax to be a vestige of communist policy; deductions are the means which the capitalistic end of the spectrum reclaims parts of the communal largess to account for private infrastructure.

Socialistic society predates capitalism because it is the natural state for very small populations but it does NOT take into account basic human nature. Socialism does not account for greed and exceptionalism. It has no outlet to drive those forces and harness their power. Capitalism takes people for what they are and attempt to make the best of it and does so quite well. It seems you are saying that capitalism should naturally slide closer and closer to socialism in the long run, a concept that I am unilaterally opposed to. I do not believe that we need to slide any close to socialism at all. I also understand that we cannot toss out concepts based solely on the fact they are socialistic in nature, nor do I think I have ever advocated that idea. As I said before, we NEED socialism to temper capitalism because, for all of its potential, capitalism has no heart at all and makes no exceptions for weakness weather temporary or not. Given free reign, capitalism devolves into nothing better than feudalism. However, the BASIS of our society needs to be in capitalism and I fear that basis is moving the other direction and I do not believe that it is good for the future that we become more socialist. The government is inherently corrupt and inefficient and should not be allowed to grow and encroach on us in the manner that it has been doing so for such a long period of time.

That's it for now. Operating on just 2 hours of sleep and you are making me think to hard

 

[FA_Q2]

antagon

i'm strongly against campaign finance reform. look what it's done to the GOP, and by extension, the balance of policy in the country

I am surprised to hear you say this! Even as a conservative I fully back campaign finance reform. I care little about what it does to the GOP. They will need to adapt. The fact is, money is what is killing the system and until that money is tempered there will be no end to this problem. Unfortunately, I have yet to see true campaign finance reform as it is usually steeped in special interest crap. "let's limit the money that we can get except for MY constituents."

 

[Foxfyre]

antagon

i'm strongly against campaign finance reform. look what it's done to the GOP, and by extension, the balance of policy in the country

I am surprised to hear you say this! Even as a conservative I fully back campaign finance reform. I care little about what it does to the GOP. They will need to adapt. The fact is, money is what is killing the system and until that money is tempered there will be no end to this problem. Unfortunately, I have yet to see true campaign finance reform as it is usually steeped in special interest crap. "let's limit the money that we can get except for MY constituents."

I'm not opposed to campaign finance reform, but we haven't seen any yet. Every piece of legislation we have seen has involved violating the First Amendment, benefitting special interests, and giving a lot of aid and comfort to incumbants while strongly disadvantaging the lesser knowns. In McCain/Feingold for instance, most folks don't know that McCain was meticulous in making sure that large numbers of his base in Arizona would not be affected by the 'reform'.

How about legislation that disallows making contributions in the name of somebody else? That would defang the unions and big corporations. So far none of the passed or proposed legislation addresses that.

How about legislation that prevents businesses or organizations from contributing but requires all contributions to come from individuals complete with verifiable addresses and maybe who they work for or represent? So far none of the passed or proposed legislation addresses that.

How about legislation that limits campaign contributions from being accepted from anybody who is not a legal resident of the state the candidate will represent? So far none of the passed or proposed legislation addresses that.

How about legislation that requires Presidential candidates to agree in advance on whether they will both campaign with the amount the government has collected on tax forms for campaigns or they will both self finance so that both play by the same rules? That would prevent one receiving an unexpected windfall from double crossing the other as Obama did McCain in the last election.

How about reform that imposes fines or penalties for campaign ads that mislead, misrepresent, or flat out lie about the other candidates' record or position? I've never seen any proposal related to that.

BUT. . .the only realistic campaign reform that will likely ever occur in this country is a Constitutional amendment that prevents Congress or the President from using the people's money to benefit ANY person, entity, or group unless ALL people, entities, or groups are equally benefitted. In other words, take all special interests out of the equation, and there will be NO PROFIT in spending gazillions of dollars to get elected to the office as there will be no means by which an elected official can use the people's money to increase his own power, prestige, influence, or personal fortune.

 

[antagon]

to your earlier contention that neither communism nor socialism are aligned with the nature of humanity, consider that communal societies predated capitalist ones. it is not until you introduce surplus that you get specialization. from specialization you get trade, then currency, THEN capitalism begins to be feasible. add population and government to organize it, and capitalism begins to fail in it's ability to sustain society - to sustain itself. the government's role in managing currency in a way which supports capitalism, especially in a technological age, becomes more and more dependent on socialist mechanisms as a natural response to shoring up the freedoms and rewards of capitalism.

there are conditions, then, which all of these different systems are natural to humanity. the family unit remains a vestige of communal life which these other principles have made a mess of.

.....

i think that we've gone great distances to make capitalist principles work better within the broader economy and society. we've decided that unfettered capitalism fails in these objectives much like a motor with no car attached fails to be a valuable means of transportation. what about the fetters of socialism?

i dont believe that it's possible to eliminate the propensity for capitalism to benefit the greedy or socialism to benefit the slothful, however, regulations on capitalism have helped to curtail its end. socialistic policy has not been controlled to the same extent.

working with the system we've got, i would suggest some changes to take the perversions out of welfare:

for new registrants, or those who have 1 child and aren't pregnant, limit the benefits to the one-child level, then eliminate household income restrictions and restrictions on adults eligible to work in the household. a high child to parent ratio and a de facto single parent household incentive, makes the current clintonian workfair system difficult to enforce.

this reform might suffice for another decade or so, but the future will call for other innovations and reforms in capitalism, socialistic and communistic components of american life, in order to seed growth and strength in our economy. could we afford to dogmatically exclude any of these principles?

as to tax.. we did have a drawn out conversation, i believe. rather than dogma there, the good and bad of the tax system need to be seen for what they are. the current trend is for targetted taxation on industry, and an increase rather than decrease in exemptions and deductions.

i consider tax to be a vestige of communist policy; deductions are the means which the capitalistic end of the spectrum reclaims parts of the communal largess to account for private infrastructure.

Socialistic society predates capitalism because it is the natural state for very small populations but it does NOT take into account basic human nature. Socialism does not account for greed and exceptionalism. It has no outlet to drive those forces and harness their power. Capitalism takes people for what they are and attempt to make the best of it and does so quite well. It seems you are saying that capitalism should naturally slide closer and closer to socialism in the long run, a concept that I am unilaterally opposed to. I do not believe that we need to slide any close to socialism at all. I also understand that we cannot toss out concepts based solely on the fact they are socialistic in nature, nor do I think I have ever advocated that idea. As I said before, we NEED socialism to temper capitalism because, for all of its potential, capitalism has no heart at all and makes no exceptions for weakness weather temporary or not. Given free reign, capitalism devolves into nothing better than feudalism. However, the BASIS of our society needs to be in capitalism and I fear that basis is moving the other direction and I do not believe that it is good for the future that we become more socialist. The government is inherently corrupt and inefficient and should not be allowed to grow and encroach on us in the manner that it has been doing so for such a long period of time.

That's it for now. Operating on just 2 hours of sleep and you are making me think to hard

communism predates capitalism which predates socialism, to clarify my contention. early communes like the smaller north american native tribes had plenty of ways to accommodate ambition. your presumptions on human nature seem based on an idea that we are all ambitious, and that is just as errant as a systemic failure to reward our effort. there is a reason mixed economies work, and that dogmatic economies of any persuasion will fail.

i agree that capitalism should be the basis of our society, but i'd say innovation in public policy would better ensure that, rather than unilateral opposition.

my assertion that socialistic components in our society are expanding more aggressively than private/capitalist ones is just an observation. it stems from efficiency in capitalism. bunch specific of reasons within that, but plainly, fewer folks are involved in every dollar made now than in 1980. this trend is building with exponential character as technology and globalization make capitalism more and more efficient, concentrating its proceeds to fewer, but wealthier among us.

you say you're ok with a safety net. where will all those whose jobs fall victim to this trend fall?

the challenge is to revolutionize the safety net, rather than to deny its role, unilaterally. the economy/society which pulls this off will lead the way through the 21st century like the US led through the 20th.

 

[FA_Q2]

communism predates capitalism which predates socialism, to clarify my contention. early communes like the smaller north american native tribes had plenty of ways to accommodate ambition. your presumptions on human nature seem based on an idea that we are all ambitious, and that is just as errant as a systemic failure to reward our effort. there is a reason mixed economies work, and that dogmatic economies of any persuasion will fail.

i agree that capitalism should be the basis of our society, but i'd say innovation in public policy would better ensure that, rather than unilateral opposition.

my assertion that socialistic components in our society are expanding more aggressively than private/capitalist ones is just an observation. it stems from efficiency in capitalism. bunch specific of reasons within that, but plainly, fewer folks are involved in every dollar made now than in 1980. this trend is building with exponential character as technology and globalization make capitalism more and more efficient, concentrating its proceeds to fewer, but wealthier among us.

you say you're ok with a safety net. where will all those whose jobs fall victim to this trend fall?

the challenge is to revolutionize the safety net, rather than to deny its role, unilaterally. the economy/society which pulls this off will lead the way through the 21st century like the US led through the 20th.

Again, I am not advocating unilateral opposition to socialistic programs and I do not think anyone else here is either. What you are referring to is a completely separate problem from what we were talking about. We were debating the effects of some of the social programs have had on the lower class and how fox and I believe that some if these programs are helping to create the problem instead of relieving it. Globalization and automation are a different problem that need to be attacked in different ways.
First off, I reject the notion that automation is removing jobs from the economy. Robotics and computers are not new and have been put to use for many years making people more productive. This does cause job losses within a specific and narrow scope but those jobs do not disappear as most people seem to think but, instead, move to other fields as needed. If automation and computers were killing jobs where is the evedense in the unemployment rate?
Where can I find the unemployment rate for previous years?
There has been no drastic drop in unemployment from jobs moving overseas or from increasing productivity at all. There are wide swings that accompany recessions and booms but that is it. If those were killing our jobs then we should see it right there. Truth is, jobs are tied directly to the economy. If there is loose money floating around, someone will take that cash and use people to make more. That is the basis of our economy. That is why recessions cause unemployment, the money dried up. Increases in efficiency may net you a lost job today but it will open one up tomorrow. The problem with moving our jobs overseas is another issue: the loss of basic industry and diversity of assets within this nation that allow it to suffer through recessions. The more we ship the basics out of this nation the harder it is to recover when we fall. As to automation, there really is no downside to that minus the temporary loss in jobs as the jobs move to other fields.

 

[Polk]

Obama's rhetoric concerning the rich and corporations plays right into the lower income brackets thinking process....let's face it...the lower income bracketted individuals are basically high school drop out uneducated types who don't have shit...and have to rely on government assisstance. They rely on the internet, Olberman, Maddow and the DailyKOS for their news and political content. Welfare, foodstamps and the thought of free healthcare on the backs of the rich keeps them in control. Sorry if that's a little blunt to anyone.

By all means, continue to display your stupidity.

 

[Polk]

pc, this was YOU trying to bait the rich and middle classes against the poor, an elitist attitude of look how dumb the poor is and how smart the rich are...

Ayup and as we all know, wealth and intelligence are highly correlated. Ask Paris Hilton.

 

[Polk]

Obama's rhetoric concerning the rich and corporations plays right into the lower income brackets thinking process....let's face it...the lower income bracketted individuals are basically high school drop out uneducated types who don't have shit...and have to rely on government assisstance. They rely on the internet, Olberman, Maddow and the DailyKOS for their news and political content. Welfare, foodstamps and the thought of free healthcare on the backs of the rich keeps them in control. Sorry if that's a little blunt to anyone.

While it may be blunt, the picture is a bit more nuanced in that the same folks who support the President now, the lowest income group...they become the middle class shortly.
So, contrary to the prevalent 'victim cult' here, on the board, there must be some sort of learning curve that makes folks more realistic as they become more wealthy.


"More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell."
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - IBD - Investors.com


So, does that mean that folks get smarter as they become more wealthy, or that they become more wealthy because they become smarter?

Lefties, take note.

I think either might apply. But you can't use 1991 figures to make THAT point. Every indicator told the same story in the first decade of the 21st Century, and that was that a typical family works many more hours a year than 30 years ago, because it takes two incomes at wages that had remained stagnant since, you guessed it, 1991, in order to make ends meet. Are you going to make me pull up all the statistics which prove that?

Not only that, but his numbers are completely bogus. The vast majority of the individuals don't more far from their birth status. A high school dropout born in a wealthy family has a higher chance of being a wealthy adult than a college-educated child of poor parents.

 

[Polk]

Pell Grants aren't generally taken by working/welfare class people.
And with the gov't takeoever of the student loan market I doubt he's made many friends there.

What has the government taken over in the student loan market? Private loans are still readily available.