Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't have just rich and poor in a free market society.
No, I would not want to compromise the concept of one citizen, one vote. But I do think the system should ensure that everybody has a stake in the consequences of their vote.
When you have almost 50% of U.S. taxpayers paying little or no federal income taxes, those people don't care how much tax is put on everybody else. They do have incentive to vote for people who will keep them off the tax rolls and are far more likely to vote for their own self interest than they are likely to consider any other cause and effect of what their elected leaders do.
Initiate a 100% fair, equitable, across the board flat tax rate so that everybody pays the same rate on whatever income they have--a modest blanket exemption could be allowed so the kid with a paper route wouldn't need to fill out a federal tax form--but otherwise everybody pays 10% or 12% or 15% or whatever rate is necessary to fund the NECESSARY functions of the federal government. Now there is no incentive to vote for people who will keep 50% of the people tax free, but there is incentive to vote for people who will be careful and competentl stewards of the people's money because those who do that well will merit the people's vote.
Well that would be the pie in the sky ideal scenario. I really don't know why more people dont get behind it. Especially the left considering all the loopholes it would get rid of. I think at the end of the day they just don't want to admit that they really aren't interested in a truly fair tax code.
This sweeping generalization brought to you by the Shill Society!
Well that would be the pie in the sky ideal scenario. I really don't know why more people dont get behind it. Especially the left considering all the loopholes it would get rid of. I think at the end of the day they just don't want to admit that they really aren't interested in a truly fair tax code.
This sweeping generalization brought to you by the Shill Society!
Then why can't you get a liberal to agree with it? I don't like generalizations either, but some are occasionally true. Can you name a democrat that favors the fair tax? One poll said that only about a third of democrats actually favor a tax system where everyone pays the same rate in taxes. You don't have to understand liberals well to see why. They have a lot of things they want to do for people that they know they can't pay for through a fair system.
This sweeping generalization brought to you by the Shill Society!
Then why can't you get a liberal to agree with it? I don't like generalizations either, but some are occasionally true. Can you name a democrat that favors the fair tax? One poll said that only about a third of democrats actually favor a tax system where everyone pays the same rate in taxes. You don't have to understand liberals well to see why. They have a lot of things they want to do for people that they know they can't pay for through a fair system.
"truly fair tax code" - those words are highly charged.
You're assuming that the fair tax is fair just because it has the name it does.
liberals want fair taxes. it's all in how you define fair. I know that liberals and conservatives insult each other around here, but there's no need to join in. Liberals and conservatives both want what's fair. Saying otherwise is just a needless insult.
Thomas Jefferson on this subject.
Well that would be the pie in the sky ideal scenario. I really don't know why more people dont get behind it. Especially the left considering all the loopholes it would get rid of. I think at the end of the day they just don't want to admit that they really aren't interested in a truly fair tax code.
This sweeping generalization brought to you by the Shill Society!
Then why can't you get a liberal to agree with it? I don't like generalizations either, but some are occasionally true. Can you name a democrat that favors the fair tax? One poll said that only about a third of democrats actually favor a tax system where everyone pays the same rate in taxes. You don't have to understand liberals well to see why. They have a lot of things they want to do for people that they know they can't pay for through a fair system.
I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do.
I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do. That's one of those foundational lies that means we can't have a decent discussion on these boards.
Furthermore, to say nothing substantial has been done to help the poor in this country just isn't true either. It's a comfortable deception to believe it though.
Bern80 you keep talking about liberals not wanting to be fair because they don't fall in line with what you, personally, think is fair. Hell you dont even define the word fair, but type paragraphs and paragraphs about liberals. See the way you prove something doesnt meet a standard is to explain the standard first...then compare the facts...then follow with your conclusion. You havent done any of that except the conclusion.
This board is almost a waste of time in terms of decent debate. sigh.
I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do. That's one of those foundational lies that means we can't have a decent discussion on these boards.
Furthermore, to say nothing substantial has been done to help the poor in this country just isn't true either. It's a comfortable deception to believe it though.
Bern80 you keep talking about liberals not wanting to be fair because they don't fall in line with what you, personally, think is fair. Hell you dont even define the word fair, but type paragraphs and paragraphs about liberals. See the way you prove something doesnt meet a standard is to explain the standard first...then compare the facts...then follow with your conclusion. You havent done any of that except the conclusion.
This board is almost a waste of time in terms of decent debate. sigh.
I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do. That's one of those foundational lies that means we can't have a decent discussion on these boards.
Furthermore, to say nothing substantial has been done to help the poor in this country just isn't true either. It's a comfortable deception to believe it though.
Bern80 you keep talking about liberals not wanting to be fair because they don't fall in line with what you, personally, think is fair. Hell you dont even define the word fair, but type paragraphs and paragraphs about liberals. See the way you prove something doesnt meet a standard is to explain the standard first...then compare the facts...then follow with your conclusion. You havent done any of that except the conclusion.
This board is almost a waste of time in terms of decent debate. sigh.
Fair. That's a hard word to define because the liberals and conservatives (and me in this particular case) view fair at different chronological points. Conservatives (and a lot of libertarians) view fair as a starting point. Liberals have a tendency to view fair as an ending point. If a guy works but doesn't make enough to pay his bills, liberals seem to believe that it is fair to take from someone that has a surplus (as defined by somebody... I still haven't figured out who gets to define that) and use it to help the guy pay his bills (or for food or whatever). I don't think the two will ever agree on what fair is to be honest. Namely because if either caves on the definition of fair their whole platform collapses.
That is just my perspective and every individual actually has a different definition.
It's irrelevant to one of the topics we're discussing, yes. But forum decorum is ever present. Why would you debate someone who can't even admit the slightest truth (Hint: You can't even admit it when called on it) ? If we can't start at a basis of truth and understanding each other and treat each other civilly....why even talk?Dude, even IF that is true, it's utterly irrelevant.
I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do. That's one of those foundational lies that means we can't have a decent discussion on these boards.
Furthermore, to say nothing substantial has been done to help the poor in this country just isn't true either. It's a comfortable deception to believe it though.
Bern80 you keep talking about liberals not wanting to be fair because they don't fall in line with what you, personally, think is fair. Hell you dont even define the word fair, but type paragraphs and paragraphs about liberals. See the way you prove something doesnt meet a standard is to explain the standard first...then compare the facts...then follow with your conclusion. You havent done any of that except the conclusion.
This board is almost a waste of time in terms of decent debate. sigh.
Fair. That's a hard word to define because the liberals and conservatives (and me in this particular case) view fair at different chronological points. Conservatives (and a lot of libertarians) view fair as a starting point. Liberals have a tendency to view fair as an ending point. If a guy works but doesn't make enough to pay his bills, liberals seem to believe that it is fair to take from someone that has a surplus (as defined by somebody... I still haven't figured out who gets to define that) and use it to help the guy pay his bills (or for food or whatever). I don't think the two will ever agree on what fair is to be honest. Namely because if either caves on the definition of fair their whole platform collapses.
That is just my perspective and every individual actually has a different definition.
While I disagree with parts of this, at least you didn't present it in an insulting manner, like others in the thread.
While I think your starting point/ending point works for some conservatives and liberals, I don't think it works for the majority of them.
I notice that a lot of conservatives talk about liberals wanting to take take take. I think the majority of liberals are more interested in the processes of government being fair - no discrimination, children getting an equal education, a woman's right to choose (I'm anti-abortion though)...things like that.
It's irrelevant to one of the topics we're discussing, yes. But forum decorum is ever present. Why would you debate someone who can't even admit the slightest truth (Hint: You can't even admit it when called on it) ? If we can't start at a basis of truth and understanding each other and treat each other civilly....why even talk?Dude, even IF that is true, it's utterly irrelevant.
The rich getting richer wasn't my proposition, but I do find it true. I haven't seen you cite to any authority to prove it's false. And as for all boats rising...sure that's true. But it doesnt make the delta/change/gap between the rich and poor any less. If one boat is at 2m high...and rising at 1m per minute...whereas a second boat is at 4m high and rising at 20m per minute...it's not hard to tell that despite the 1st boat rising the second boat is rising faster.
As for the class warfare bullshit, I think there's a way to discuss the standard of living for all without resorting to it. But there are those conservatives who will ALWAYS call it class warfare as their stock attack on liberals. It's like the "blame booosh" meme. (conservatives are much better at simplistic memes) No one can ever talk about the economy that came before without some conservative shouting that. (I'm actually hoping Obama loses so conservatives can stop blaming him...like they asked people not to blame booosh) Many conservatives want to social engineer with anti-drug policies, anti-gay policies, military intervention...but when it comes to liberals wanting to help their own, you turn it all around and lambast them for it.
The fact remains that lots of people get rich in unscrupulous ways or by taking advantage of people with their superior bargaining power. I can't say that the former reason is a majority of rich people/groups. Nor can I say that the latter is unfair. Life isn't fair. People use their advantages in self-interested ways. We all do. That being said, trying to put on this pollyanna picture that rich folks aren't using their advantages against everyone else (even each other) is ridiculous. Of course they do. And saying "class warfare" doesnt or shouldnt exist is either naive or dishonest. And so we're back to fairness.
Companies have proven that they can't self-regulate. When left to their own devices, they'll take take take until someone holds their feet to the fire. We wouldn't have child labor laws or fair pay for women if we just let companies do what they wanted to do. The response that people would boycott those companies hasn't been borne out by history. It took federal legislation - because the little guy didn't have the power - except through government!
If you want to say something is false, cite to a source. I'll do the same. Here's an article that I keep in my bookmarks on this subject:
the u.s. middle class is being wiped out here's the stats to prove it: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance
Please cite to some material yourself and we can progress.
Fair. That's a hard word to define because the liberals and conservatives (and me in this particular case) view fair at different chronological points. Conservatives (and a lot of libertarians) view fair as a starting point. Liberals have a tendency to view fair as an ending point. If a guy works but doesn't make enough to pay his bills, liberals seem to believe that it is fair to take from someone that has a surplus (as defined by somebody... I still haven't figured out who gets to define that) and use it to help the guy pay his bills (or for food or whatever). I don't think the two will ever agree on what fair is to be honest. Namely because if either caves on the definition of fair their whole platform collapses.
That is just my perspective and every individual actually has a different definition.
While I disagree with parts of this, at least you didn't present it in an insulting manner, like others in the thread.
While I think your starting point/ending point works for some conservatives and liberals, I don't think it works for the majority of them.
I notice that a lot of conservatives talk about liberals wanting to take take take. I think the majority of liberals are more interested in the processes of government being fair - no discrimination, children getting an equal education, a woman's right to choose (I'm anti-abortion though)...things like that.
It's irrelevant to one of the topics we're discussing, yes. But forum decorum is ever present. Why would you debate someone who can't even admit the slightest truth (Hint: You can't even admit it when called on it) ? If we can't start at a basis of truth and understanding each other and treat each other civilly....why even talk?Dude, even IF that is true, it's utterly irrelevant.
The rich getting richer wasn't my proposition, but I do find it true. I haven't seen you cite to any authority to prove it's false. And as for all boats rising...sure that's true. But it doesnt make the delta/change/gap between the rich and poor any less. If one boat is at 2m high...and rising at 1m per minute...whereas a second boat is at 4m high and rising at 20m per minute...it's not hard to tell that despite the 1st boat rising the second boat is rising faster.
As for the class warfare bullshit, I think there's a way to discuss the standard of living for all without resorting to it. But there are those conservatives who will ALWAYS call it class warfare as their stock attack on liberals. It's like the "blame booosh" meme. (conservatives are much better at simplistic memes) No one can ever talk about the economy that came before without some conservative shouting that. (I'm actually hoping Obama loses so conservatives can stop blaming him...like they asked people not to blame booosh) Many conservatives want to social engineer with anti-drug policies, anti-gay policies, military intervention...but when it comes to liberals wanting to help their own, you turn it all around and lambast them for it.
The fact remains that lots of people get rich in unscrupulous ways or by taking advantage of people with their superior bargaining power. I can't say that the former reason is a majority of rich people/groups. Nor can I say that the latter is unfair. Life isn't fair. People use their advantages in self-interested ways. We all do. That being said, trying to put on this pollyanna picture that rich folks aren't using their advantages against everyone else (even each other) is ridiculous. Of course they do. And saying "class warfare" doesnt or shouldnt exist is either naive or dishonest. And so we're back to fairness.
Companies have proven that they can't self-regulate. When left to their own devices, they'll take take take until someone holds their feet to the fire. We wouldn't have child labor laws or fair pay for women if we just let companies do what they wanted to do. The response that people would boycott those companies hasn't been borne out by history. It took federal legislation - because the little guy didn't have the power - except through government!
If you want to say something is false, cite to a source. I'll do the same. Here's an article that I keep in my bookmarks on this subject:
the u.s. middle class is being wiped out here's the stats to prove it: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance
Please cite to some material yourself and we can progress.
Good link, thanks for posting it. Can't argue with those stats, but the question is whether redistributing the wealth does anything to fix the problem. IMHO such policies do nothing to resolve the underlying problems we face, it's like a drop in the bucket that changes nothing but gets pols re-elected. So you raise taxes on the millionaires and billionaires, what you get does nothing but temporarily help some people at the other end of the income spectrum. But not all of them and not enough, and the problems do not get addressed.
The lib/dem answer is to raise taxes more and more, but such actions disincentivize the economy and drive businesses and investments offshore. Surely not the best solution if you really want to assist the lower income folks. So I guess the morality of the redistribution of wealth comes down to this: do you want to help people help themselves or merely throw them another bone? Somebody else's bone I might add. How moral is that?
Survey research shows that most welfare recipients endorse the work ethic. Conservative Lawrence Mead replies that recipients endorse it only aspirationally, not as a
duty. They are willing to work at well-paying, respectable jobs, but scorn the poorly
paid menial jobs open to them [20].
Meads claim can be tested in USA by looking at the dynamics of welfare use and work by recipients before the PRWORA required them to find jobs. If the culture-of-dependency hypothesis is correct, few recipients would have significant prior work experience before going on welfare, or mix welfare with work, because they despise low-wage jobs. Most would be on welfare continuously for a long time, because they prefer free-riding to self-sufficiency. Few would exit welfare by getting a low-paying, menial job.
The facts contradict all of these predictions. More than four-fifths of AFDC recipients had prior work experience, on average more than five years [21]. From 3660% of recipients worked to supplement their welfare payments, usually at low-paying informal sector jobs [22]. Median lifetime AFDC use was only about three years. Less than a quarter of recipients received welfare for a decade or more. The vast majority of long-term users did not use it continuously, but left it frequently, only to return [23]. Most exits from welfare were due to recipients finding work [24].
These high rates of work exit under AFDC are more impressive in light of the
disincentives to work built into this programme. Exiting AFDC often resulted in loss
of Medicaid benefits. The increased income recipients could gain from working was
often cancelled out by increased costs of going to work. The jobs recipients could find
were usually part-time, temporary, lacking in benefits, dead-end, and ineligible for
unemployment insurance. Recipients therefore faced great risks of unstable income by
leaving the welfare rolls for work. Few jobs accommodated mothers child-care responsibilities.
Most did not offer leave to take care of sick children; many did not permit
workers to make personal phone calls to check up on their children left at home alone
[25]. These patterns of work, despite weighty disincentives, testify to persistence against
heavy odds, and a willingness to take major financial risks in a determination to fulfil
work-ethic values such as self-reliance.
While I disagree with parts of this, at least you didn't present it in an insulting manner, like others in the thread.
While I think your starting point/ending point works for some conservatives and liberals, I don't think it works for the majority of them.
I notice that a lot of conservatives talk about liberals wanting to take take take. I think the majority of liberals are more interested in the processes of government being fair - no discrimination, children getting an equal education, a woman's right to choose (I'm anti-abortion though)...things like that.
It's irrelevant to one of the topics we're discussing, yes. But forum decorum is ever present. Why would you debate someone who can't even admit the slightest truth (Hint: You can't even admit it when called on it) ? If we can't start at a basis of truth and understanding each other and treat each other civilly....why even talk?
The rich getting richer wasn't my proposition, but I do find it true. I haven't seen you cite to any authority to prove it's false. And as for all boats rising...sure that's true. But it doesnt make the delta/change/gap between the rich and poor any less. If one boat is at 2m high...and rising at 1m per minute...whereas a second boat is at 4m high and rising at 20m per minute...it's not hard to tell that despite the 1st boat rising the second boat is rising faster.
As for the class warfare bullshit, I think there's a way to discuss the standard of living for all without resorting to it. But there are those conservatives who will ALWAYS call it class warfare as their stock attack on liberals. It's like the "blame booosh" meme. (conservatives are much better at simplistic memes) No one can ever talk about the economy that came before without some conservative shouting that. (I'm actually hoping Obama loses so conservatives can stop blaming him...like they asked people not to blame booosh) Many conservatives want to social engineer with anti-drug policies, anti-gay policies, military intervention...but when it comes to liberals wanting to help their own, you turn it all around and lambast them for it.
The fact remains that lots of people get rich in unscrupulous ways or by taking advantage of people with their superior bargaining power. I can't say that the former reason is a majority of rich people/groups. Nor can I say that the latter is unfair. Life isn't fair. People use their advantages in self-interested ways. We all do. That being said, trying to put on this pollyanna picture that rich folks aren't using their advantages against everyone else (even each other) is ridiculous. Of course they do. And saying "class warfare" doesnt or shouldnt exist is either naive or dishonest. And so we're back to fairness.
Companies have proven that they can't self-regulate. When left to their own devices, they'll take take take until someone holds their feet to the fire. We wouldn't have child labor laws or fair pay for women if we just let companies do what they wanted to do. The response that people would boycott those companies hasn't been borne out by history. It took federal legislation - because the little guy didn't have the power - except through government!
If you want to say something is false, cite to a source. I'll do the same. Here's an article that I keep in my bookmarks on this subject:
the u.s. middle class is being wiped out here's the stats to prove it: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance
Please cite to some material yourself and we can progress.
Good link, thanks for posting it. Can't argue with those stats, but the question is whether redistributing the wealth does anything to fix the problem. IMHO such policies do nothing to resolve the underlying problems we face, it's like a drop in the bucket that changes nothing but gets pols re-elected. So you raise taxes on the millionaires and billionaires, what you get does nothing but temporarily help some people at the other end of the income spectrum. But not all of them and not enough, and the problems do not get addressed.
The lib/dem answer is to raise taxes more and more, but such actions disincentivize the economy and drive businesses and investments offshore. Surely not the best solution if you really want to assist the lower income folks. So I guess the morality of the redistribution of wealth comes down to this: do you want to help people help themselves or merely throw them another bone? Somebody else's bone I might add. How moral is that?
We're not thinking too differently, truth be told. Welfare statistics do show a larger than ideal repeat rate (25% of women repeat within 1 year, 42% repeat within 2). However raising taxes on the wealthiest members does work as part of a long-term solution. Why? Because of the simple fact that to get the surpluses we need to lower our debt, cutting alone isn't going to be enough. Massive cuts + taxes are the only way to make sure that what we've got coming in = more than we have going out. Anyone who opposes any and all taxes for any reason isn't being realistic. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils...which is what our dire situation has put us in. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face...and let America go to shambles...or are you going to suck something up that might be somewhat unfair, but necessary?
If cuts won't be enough...and taxes are required...who are you going to tax? Taxing the poor and middle class would make the economy worse!
I disagree that taxes are a disincentive to achievement. People arent going to stop trying to gather wealth just because they're taxed. Type A people will never stop working, achieving, and striving. No one is ever going to say, "the government takes too much. Id rather just starve." I will concede the opposite though - there are some people who are willing to STOP working because they have decided that the lifestyle that government assistance affords is enough for them. But the reality is that most welfare recipients get MEAGER amounts and would rather be off the rolls to work at a better job. (Studies show that part of the problem is that the jobs welfare recipients can get usually have no benefits and dont improve their living conditions..no matter how hard they work)
I DO want people to help themselves. I think you need to, respectfully, educate yourself on what happens with welfare. Many states have pretty strict requirements for what recipients must do...including 30 hours a week (almost a full work week) of job training/career counseling classes....Food Stamps usually amount to a little under $100 per month and only enough to buy 2 weeks worth of goceries but it does help so it is worth it.
Survey research shows that most welfare recipients endorse the work ethic. Conservative Lawrence Mead replies that recipients endorse it only aspirationally, not as a
duty. They are willing to work at well-paying, respectable jobs, but scorn the poorly
paid menial jobs open to them [20].
Meads claim can be tested in USA by looking at the dynamics of welfare use and work by recipients before the PRWORA required them to find jobs. If the culture-of-dependency hypothesis is correct, few recipients would have significant prior work experience before going on welfare, or mix welfare with work, because they despise low-wage jobs. Most would be on welfare continuously for a long time, because they prefer free-riding to self-sufficiency. Few would exit welfare by getting a low-paying, menial job.
The facts contradict all of these predictions. More than four-fifths of AFDC recipients had prior work experience, on average more than five years [21]. From 3660% of recipients worked to supplement their welfare payments, usually at low-paying informal sector jobs [22]. Median lifetime AFDC use was only about three years. Less than a quarter of recipients received welfare for a decade or more. The vast majority of long-term users did not use it continuously, but left it frequently, only to return [23]. Most exits from welfare were due to recipients finding work [24].
These high rates of work exit under AFDC are more impressive in light of the
disincentives to work built into this programme. Exiting AFDC often resulted in loss
of Medicaid benefits. The increased income recipients could gain from working was
often cancelled out by increased costs of going to work. The jobs recipients could find
were usually part-time, temporary, lacking in benefits, dead-end, and ineligible for
unemployment insurance. Recipients therefore faced great risks of unstable income by
leaving the welfare rolls for work. Few jobs accommodated mothers child-care responsibilities.
Most did not offer leave to take care of sick children; many did not permit
workers to make personal phone calls to check up on their children left at home alone
[25]. These patterns of work, despite weighty disincentives, testify to persistence against
heavy odds, and a willingness to take major financial risks in a determination to fulfil
work-ethic values such as self-reliance.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/workfare.pdf
So the idea that welfare people don't want to work is totally false.
I get that it seems to someone who has no contact with the welfare system that it's just a hand out. It seems common sense to ask for quid-pro-quo, but the people asking for this don't understand why this isn't possible because they don't know enough about the system. Current welfare rules ensure that individuals who work are better off financially than if they do not work.
Several states and cities have adopted a more reasonable approach under which people who are ready to work are pushed to find jobs right away and those who lack the most basic skills are given education and training in addition to assistance.
Many recipients are mentally disabled, too old for the work force, or are performing socially-valuable services like taking care of children or the elderly. If welfare were gone everywhere, you'd have thousands of children with no one to take care of them, elderly destitute, and crazy people roaming your streets. But the conservative mantra seems to be "fuck em. they're responsible for themselves." That short-sighted plan doesn't seem to realize what the effect of suddenly having thousands more homeless, destitute people would do to ALL of us. People don't want to realize, even in this world of instant messaging, how connected we all are.
Are we asking farmers who receive subsidies not to plant certain crops to do some kind of work in return? No. We're not.
While I disagree with parts of this, at least you didn't present it in an insulting manner, like others in the thread.
While I think your starting point/ending point works for some conservatives and liberals, I don't think it works for the majority of them.
I notice that a lot of conservatives talk about liberals wanting to take take take. I think the majority of liberals are more interested in the processes of government being fair - no discrimination, children getting an equal education, a woman's right to choose (I'm anti-abortion though)...things like that.
It would not occur to me to apply for welfare because it pays as well or better than a job.
