Jump to content

Socialist/Liberal ideologists put down USA


joihan777

Recommended Posts

Interesting talk on health care - if you have the 45 minutes to listen - by T.R. Reid: link

I listened, but the speaker never quite gets around to answering the following question: How is any resource that is NOT available in unlimited supply avoid being rationed? Put another way, how can you provide complete (and equal) coverage to all, if the resources do not exist in sufficient supply?

 

And if it is to be rationed, how best should it be rationed; by one's industriousness (ie ability to pay) or by government fiat?

 

The speaker acknowledges (in his book) that Germany has 200 insurance companies that anyone can patronize, and switch between any of them on 60 days notice. America has about 5 times that many health insurance companies, but because of government fiat, we are not allowed access to all of them at the same time.

 

I thought his most enlightening comment was this: "Canadians don't mind waiting so much, as long as the rich Canadian and the poor Canadian have to wait about the same amount of time" (Start listening at 28:45) I call that spreading the misery. At 49:30, the speaker uses the word "Fair". It's fair if everyone suffers equally, regardless of their industriousness, their chosen lifestyle.........basically........regardless of anything that would reflect the person himself.

 

His concluding statement (around 50:00), "..but, the main issue for any country's health care system is a moral question, 'Do you believe that everybody in your society should have access to a doctor when she needs it?' And if you answer that question 'Yes', well then you can design a healthcare system like the ones I saw in Britain-Germany-Taiwan-Korea-Japan-Canada where everybody's covered. If you don't make the moral commitment to cover everybody, if you don't even have the conversation as I think the United States has never had, well then you end up with a system...maybe....where certain people, people with good insurance or a lot of money get the finest care, in the finest hospitals with no waiting, and tens of millons of people never even get in the door"

 

No one is denied access in America. They just don't have equal access.

 

In the end the speaker is making the moral argument. My next question would then be: In a country where we are constantly reminded that [insert your preferred set of moral codes here] and State are (and should be) kept separate, why should morality play a role in this issue? If you want to see morality (or moral code) in action, witness the huge number of independent charities that exist in America (notwithstanding Medicare and Medicaid).

 

If the argument boils down to a moral question, then how is it moral to expect an industrious person to carry the load of himself, and that of those who aren't?

 

You may think me crass, Retro, and I'm sorry if you do, but if the question (as the speaker says) is one of morals, then whose morals are we to live by?

 

Here is an article from the Cato Institute, if you have the time.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I listened, but the speaker never quite gets around to answering the following question: How is any resource that is NOT available in unlimited supply avoid being rationed? Put another way, how can you provide complete (and equal) coverage to all, if the resources do not exist in sufficient supply?

 

And if it is to be rationed, how best should it be rationed; by one's industriousness (ie ability to pay) or by government fiat?

 

The speaker acknowledges (in his book) that Germany has 200 insurance companies that anyone can patronize, and switch between any of them on 60 days notice. America has about 5 times that many health insurance companies, but because of government fiat, we are not allowed access to all of them at the same time.

 

I thought his most enlightening comment was this: "Canadians don't mind waiting so much, as long as the rich Canadian and the poor Canadian have to wait about the same amount of time" (Start listening at 28:45) I call that spreading the misery. At 49:30, the speaker uses the word "Fair". It's fair if everyone suffers equally, regardless of their industriousness, their chosen lifestyle.........basically........regardless of anything that would reflect the person himself.

 

His concluding statement (around 50:00), "..but, the main issue for any country's health care system is a moral question, 'Do you believe that everybody in your society should have access to a doctor when she needs it?' And if you answer that question 'Yes', well then you can design a healthcare system like the ones I saw in Britain-Germany-Taiwan-Korea-Japan-Canada where everybody's covered. If you don't make the moral commitment to cover everybody, if you don't even have the conversation as I think the United States has never had, well then you end up with a system...maybe....where certain people, people with good insurance or a lot of money get the finest care, in the finest hospitals with no waiting, and tens of millons of people never even get in the door"

 

No one is denied access in America. They just don't have equal access.

 

In the end the speaker is making the moral argument. My next question would then be: In a country where we are constantly reminded that [insert your preferred set of moral codes here] and State are (and should be) kept separate, why should morality play a role in this issue? If you want to see morality (or moral code) in action, witness the huge number of independent charities that exist in America (notwithstanding Medicare and Medicaid).

 

If the argument boils down to a moral question, then how is it moral to expect an industrious person to carry the load of himself, and that of those who aren't?

 

You may think me crass, Retro, and I'm sorry if you do, but if the question (as the speaker says) is one of morals, then whose morals are we to live by?

 

Here is an article from the Cato Institute, if you have the time.

sounds like the 'tragedy of the commons'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened, but the speaker never quite gets around to answering the following question: How is any resource that is NOT available in unlimited supply avoid being rationed? Put another way, how can you provide complete (and equal) coverage to all, if the resources do not exist in sufficient supply?

 

And if it is to be rationed, how best should it be rationed; by one's industriousness (ie ability to pay) or by government fiat?

 

The speaker acknowledges (in his book) that Germany has 200 insurance companies that anyone can patronize, and switch between any of them on 60 days notice. America has about 5 times that many health insurance companies, but because of government fiat, we are not allowed access to all of them at the same time.

 

I thought his most enlightening comment was this: "Canadians don't mind waiting so much, as long as the rich Canadian and the poor Canadian have to wait about the same amount of time" (Start listening at 28:45) I call that spreading the misery. At 49:30, the speaker uses the word "Fair". It's fair if everyone suffers equally, regardless of their industriousness, their chosen lifestyle.........basically........regardless of anything that would reflect the person himself.

 

His concluding statement (around 50:00), "..but, the main issue for any country's health care system is a moral question, 'Do you believe that everybody in your society should have access to a doctor when she needs it?' And if you answer that question 'Yes', well then you can design a healthcare system like the ones I saw in Britain-Germany-Taiwan-Korea-Japan-Canada where everybody's covered. If you don't make the moral commitment to cover everybody, if you don't even have the conversation as I think the United States has never had, well then you end up with a system...maybe....where certain people, people with good insurance or a lot of money get the finest care, in the finest hospitals with no waiting, and tens of millons of people never even get in the door"

 

No one is denied access in America. They just don't have equal access.

 

In the end the speaker is making the moral argument. My next question would then be: In a country where we are constantly reminded that [insert your preferred set of moral codes here] and State are (and should be) kept separate, why should morality play a role in this issue? If you want to see morality (or moral code) in action, witness the huge number of independent charities that exist in America (notwithstanding Medicare and Medicaid).

 

If the argument boils down to a moral question, then how is it moral to expect an industrious person to carry the load of himself, and that of those who aren't?

 

You may think me crass, Retro, and I'm sorry if you do, but if the question (as the speaker says) is one of morals, then whose morals are we to live by?

 

Here is an article from the Cato Institute, if you have the time.

A couple things: re. your views on the meritocracy and rationing - I think we both agree that it is being rationed now. Where we sort of differ is the view that any capable and ambitious person can make it under our system. In my view, one of the legitimate purposes of government is to make sure that the deck is not stacked. It has become progressively (if you will) more negligent at that - more derelict in its duties over the past 30 years. Progressively regressive. The results are reflected in income spread (which directly affects access to health care). Under current trends, there is no way that the health care situation is going to get any better on its own. The US population did not devolve into a bipolar structure of haves and have-nots due to natural reasons - but rather a class of people who hold the advantage have used that advantage to expand that advantage. What a surprise! Just as the left may seem naive about human nature when it comes to people working when they could get it for free, the right seems naive, or at least overly sanguine, when it comes to this issue. Either that, or they reckon that a society of lords and serfs is just a swell arrangement.

 

So yes, health care - like any other thing you can name - will always be in limited supply, and somebody, whether it be an appointed board or Adam Smith's "invisible hand" will have to decide how it is allocated. I believe in a lot of things - but the unerring wisdom of an invisible hand isn't one of them.

 

Once I got past the 2nd page or so (where I kept running into patently absurd statements like "Americans spend a lot on health care because they are rich." Explain WalMart then.), that article had a lot of good information. Looking at the inevitable (it was Cato Institute after all) editorial content together with the factual content, as a whole the article was a somewhat awkward mixture of acknowledgment of the undeniable while simultaneously discrediting it - the sort of posture you might see a debater begin to assume when he knows the jig is up - and it was a little too breathlessly eager to forecast the collapse of some of these other national plans (actually all of them now that I think of it), and their becoming more like ours - a system which even the Cato Institute admits is so flawed that it unquestionably needs to be changed. But there seemed to be a lot of factual (non-editorial) information in there too to help my understanding of those other systems. There was a lot about the Japanese system that I didn't know, and it confirmed a lot of what I do know. Plenty long read though. Thanks for the link.

Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple things: re. your views on the meritocracy and rationing - I think we both agree that it is being rationed now. Where we sort of differ is the view that any capable and ambitious person can make it under our system. In my view, one of the legitimate purposes of government is to make sure that the deck is not stacked. It has become progressively (if you will) more negligent at that - more derelict in its duties over the past 30 years. Progressively regressive.

I see you saying the government's role is to make sure that "the deck is not stacked". I'm trying to figure out what you

mean by that. I'm thinking you mean the government should keep things fair. Could you define what is fair? Do you mean

that every person born in this country has an equal amount of stuff, or they have the opportunity to achieve?

 

While you're answering that, could you also cite when/where in history the U.S. Government has had an active role in maintaining that system of keeping the deck "distributed", and what has the Government done (specifically) to upset that balance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you saying the government's role is to make sure that "the deck is not stacked". I'm trying to figure out what you

mean by that. I'm thinking you mean the government should keep things fair. Could you define what is fair? Do you mean

that every person born in this country has an equal amount of stuff, or they have the opportunity to achieve?

 

While you're answering that, could you also cite when/where in history the U.S. Government has had an active role in maintaining that system of keeping the deck "distributed", and what has the Government done (specifically) to upset that balance?

Well, first of all, I know that many on the right hate relativism, and prefer to think in absolutes: black and white vs. shades of grey. But everything is relative. I can look at history, but I can also look at trends over my lifetime. I also know that there will always be a spectrum of what "fair" means. I would place you squarely in the right third, and myself in the left third. (I suppose you think you're smack in the middle.)

 

Fair for me means:

- That they have the minimum necessary for a human existence. This means nobody living under a bridge that doesn't choose to, nobody going to bed hungry, and nobody dying for being turned away from the hospital.

- That they have the opportunity to achieve. This means a decent public education to whatever the relative standard of the day is - in my grandfather's day it was 6th grade, today it is a Bachelor's degree (I can accept reasonable costs for college - but not costs spiraling out of control beyond inflation) - and that their odds of competing successfully are at least somewhere in a range - let's say 30% +/- for the fat part of the bell curve of what would be predicted by their objectively measured academic achievement (I'm pulling criteria out of my butt here - but you get the idea) as opposed to their daddy's income and station in life. Now, caring as I do about my own kids, and having done everything possible to facilitate their success, I don't discount parental efforts entirely. Good parenting should retain much of its incentive of producing successful offspring.

 

For a couple of examples of what government may giveth and what government may taketh away, we can of course look at taxes. In the early 60s, when we were kicking butt, top individual tax rates were something like 90%. We still had rich people, but we also had a middle class. Those who claim that we still do have short and not very clear memories. We don't anymore. We have haves and have-nots, winners and losers. Not also-rans, losers.

 

One more: The estate tax was instituted under Teddy Roosevelt, who specifically mentioned it as a way of preventing hereditary aristocracy. Of course, since Reagan, it has been re-named the "Death Tax" conjuring images in the simple minded of black-hat and trench coat wearing G-Men harassing them beyond the grave, standing at their death bed snatching bills out of the hands of their grieving loved ones, stomping on them as they draw their last breath - the final insult. In the Retail design world, we call that "re-branding" and the Republicans and their flying monkey minions have done that quite well.

 

This has everything to do with tax policy. You would think that, under the crushing tax burdens of the 50s and 60s that the rich would have been suffering mightily (they were not) and that all incentive would have been absent from American industry (we were world leaders in most sectors, with a vibrant domestic market). Reagan and his successors gave the store to Wall Street. It's as simple as that. And if you look at who Reagan's (and Clintons, and Bush's and - I am sorry to say Obama's - very disappointed with Geithner) inner circle was composed of, this is not surprising at all. What is surprising is that there are so many people willingly playing along as their and their children's futures are being stolen from them right under their noses. Let's differentiate between the political and the economic system. Our economic system is an organic outgrowth of earlier British precedents. We had a revolution to remove our economic activities from the political control of George III, not to fundamentally change the economic system itself. We are again in a situation where those controlling the economy are not acting in the broader interests of the people. To that extent, I can understand the sentiments of people like fmccap and the 9/12 protesters.

 

Lastly, the recent economic melt-down: It started with these ridiculous leveraged financial instruments that grew like fungus in the deregulated financial system. The mortgages at the root of it were leveraged out - I forget the number - something like 38 times. Yet we applied the bail out money at the fat end - the banks - instead of where the problem started. We saved AIG, and let millions of people get evicted from their homes. Look at that word leveraged: It cost us 38 times as much to save Wall Street as it would have to pay off all the bad mortgages - which would have saved Wall Street. Somebody explain to me how that works for us. Oh yeah, we wouldn't have had several million repossessed homes to sell for pennies on the dollar to "investors". Whole thing is a big shakedown. Nothing more. And 99.9% of the bastards who engineered it are walking off scot free.

Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom? That ship has sailed long ago.

 

Liberals blame capitalism for the current economic crisis. Capitalism has been buried under tons of government for decades. It is socialism which has done in our civilization.

You mean socialist programs ,the military,schools ,roads,police depts,and fire depts?And corporate

welfare that makes public welfare look like a pittance?Capitalism is a shame.You work your whole life to have the corporations steal everything you have worked for.Capitalism is working out real great for the former soviet republic.Streets full of homeless beggars and a organizied crime syndicate thats makes american ones look like children.Please spare us the propaganda of the american dream.It never existed and never will until we rid america of corporate control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Retro, many on the right tend to think in terms of right and wrong. I don't deny that I am right of center, although how far

to the right is up for debate.

 

I agree that noone should live under a bridge, go hungry, or die unecessarily, however to characterize anyone who finds himself in that circumstance as being unfairly persecuted, is to deny any (potential) culpability of the person. Do I believe that anyone who finds himself in that position is at fault? Not necessarily, however to say it's right to force everyone else to become his brothers keeper, is wrong. To deny others the ability to discern for themselves who is or isn't at fault for his own problems is also wrong. Where would I get this thinking? Am I (as so many would accuse me) selfish?

 

If so, why is it fair to spread the misfortune of one to all, without regard to the culpability of the one? People are generous. They give. Some give more. Some give less. Is it your wish to punish the ones who give less?

 

About education. There are many facets to what is wrong with our educational system nowadays. I'll just discuss a couple of them, as I see them.

 

The first is the lack of it. Anymore we are concerned about "feelings" and "diversity", when we should be worried about whether or not the kids are actually learning something. A bit of current events. Here in Wake County, NC we just threw out the "diversity" crowd, in favor of neighborhood schools. Those on the "diversity" side were so sad. Afterwards, they accused us (who voted for the opposition) for wanting to reimpose segregation (thankfully they avoided the word racist). I could not be more proud. Know why? I'll bet you couldn't guess.........It's because the school board will no longer be able to hide the problem children in rooms of children from "economically-advantaged" groups. Wake County had worse graduation rates for children from low-income households than any of the surrounding (poorer) counties. They were just good at hiding it by taking those children and moving them into classrooms with children having advantages that came from richer parents. The poor kids languished (because they were "averaged out"), and the rich kids weren't really affected all that much (except the ones who were bused all over the place). Now, if there is no longer a "socio-ecnonomically balanced" school population, the school board will no longer be able to ignore the problem, and the kids who were (literally) being bused to a different school every other year can at last have some stability, and may actually get the attention they need.

 

The second problem (with education) is there is too much of it. I know, doesn't make sense, but hear me out. You say a reasonable educational standard for most to live by is a Bachelors degree. In a society where the average person has a Bachelors degree, why do you expect (and promote) the idea of manufacturing? Do you really want a production line full of B.A. or B.S. graduates? If not, then why the push for all these degrees? I'm not trying to be cruel to anyone attempting to better him or herself. I agree that education is a path (not necessarily THE path) to a bright future. But surely you know some people, just as I do, whose parent's investment in education was a waste of time and money. Some of the graduates came out with a piece of paper, certifying them in a field with no marketable skill, and even less work ethic, but they still expect to make twice a much money as a laborer, while doing half the work. Give me a high school graduate with common sense and a strong work ethic, over a college grad with a worthless degree any day of the week. I tell everyone I hire, that a degree may get them on the corporate ladder at a higher rung, but it's still up to them to climb, and everyone who works for me is on a different ladder. I make no distinction between degree or no degree when it comes to awarding excellence or at promotion time.

 

I've said it before, I'd trade every social welfare program that exists, if it meant that every one who wanted a job could get one. People who have a better idea still have the ability to get ahead. People start new businesses with a dream everyday. Look at Google, Dell, Papa Johns and any other of a host of companies less than 30 years old that were started on a shoestring and a dream. They aren't the exception. But the ever expanding rules that government keeps inflicting on us will make them that way. Look at you, you are thriving (in comparison to your former employer) because you have a competitive advantage. That's not because you are doing something to hurt them; you're just doing something better. If it makes you feel bad because of what is happening to them, then hire some of them. I can assure you that the job you offer them would mean 100x as much as any handout you could offer.

 

My problem with the Estate Tax is this. The money was taxed once when it was made. How it is right that it's taxed again? (Not black and white, right and wrong) I'm not worried about the Paris Hiltons of the world. Just as the wealth of Rockefellers has been diluted over the years, so will others. I don't envy her, so I feel no desire to take away what she will fritter away on her own.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Retro, many on the right tend to think in terms of right and wrong. I don't deny that I am right of center, although how far

to the right is up for debate.

 

I wouldn't say that you're that far right by American standards. I usually respect your opinion a great deal more than some others on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with the Estate Tax is this. The money was taxed once when it was made. How it is right that it's taxed again? (Not black and white, right and wrong) I'm not worried about the Paris Hiltons of the world. Just as the wealth of Rockefellers has been diluted over the years, so will others. I don't envy her, so I feel no desire to take away what she will fritter away on her own.

That is the same as the taxes built into the price of products. We are paying a tax on tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Retro, many on the right tend to think in terms of right and wrong. I don't deny that I am right of center, although how far

to the right is up for debate.

 

I agree that noone should live under a bridge, go hungry, or die unecessarily, however to characterize anyone who finds himself in that circumstance as being unfairly persecuted, is to deny any (potential) culpability of the person. Do I believe that anyone who finds himself in that position is at fault? Not necessarily, however to say it's right to force everyone else to become his brothers keeper, is wrong. To deny others the ability to discern for themselves who is or isn't at fault for his own problems is also wrong. Where would I get this thinking? Am I (as so many would accuse me) selfish?

 

If so, why is it fair to spread the misfortune of one to all, without regard to the culpability of the one? People are generous. They give. Some give more. Some give less. Is it your wish to punish the ones who give less?

 

About education. There are many facets to what is wrong with our educational system nowadays. I'll just discuss a couple of them, as I see them.

 

The first is the lack of it. Anymore we are concerned about "feelings" and "diversity", when we should be worried about whether or not the kids are actually learning something. A bit of current events. Here in Wake County, NC we just threw out the "diversity" crowd, in favor of neighborhood schools. Those on the "diversity" side were so sad. Afterwards, they accused us (who voted for the opposition) for wanting to reimpose segregation (thankfully they avoided the word racist). I could not be more proud. Know why? I'll bet you couldn't guess.........It's because the school board will no longer be able to hide the problem children in rooms of children from "economically-advantaged" groups. Wake County had worse graduation rates for children from low-income households than any of the surrounding (poorer) counties. They were just good at hiding it by taking those children and moving them into classrooms with children having advantages that came from richer parents. The poor kids languished (because they were "averaged out"), and the rich kids weren't really affected all that much (except the ones who were bused all over the place). Now, if there is no longer a "socio-ecnonomically balanced" school population, the school board will no longer be able to ignore the problem, and the kids who were (literally) being bused to a different school every other year can at last have some stability, and may actually get the attention they need.

 

The second problem (with education) is there is too much of it. I know, doesn't make sense, but hear me out. You say a reasonable educational standard for most to live by is a Bachelors degree. In a society where the average person has a Bachelors degree, why do you expect (and promote) the idea of manufacturing? Do you really want a production line full of B.A. or B.S. graduates? If not, then why the push for all these degrees? I'm not trying to be cruel to anyone attempting to better him or herself. I agree that education is a path (not necessarily THE path) to a bright future. But surely you know some people, just as I do, whose parent's investment in education was a waste of time and money. Some of the graduates came out with a piece of paper, certifying them in a field with no marketable skill, and even less work ethic, but they still expect to make twice a much money as a laborer, while doing half the work. Give me a high school graduate with common sense and a strong work ethic, over a college grad with a worthless degree any day of the week. I tell everyone I hire, that a degree may get them on the corporate ladder at a higher rung, but it's still up to them to climb, and everyone who works for me is on a different ladder. I make no distinction between degree or no degree when it comes to awarding excellence or at promotion time.

 

I've said it before, I'd trade every social welfare program that exists, if it meant that every one who wanted a job could get one. People who have a better idea still have the ability to get ahead. People start new businesses with a dream everyday. Look at Google, Dell, Papa Johns and any other of a host of companies less than 30 years old that were started on a shoestring and a dream. They aren't the exception. But the ever expanding rules that government keeps inflicting on us will make them that way. Look at you, you are thriving (in comparison to your former employer) because you have a competitive advantage. That's not because you are doing something to hurt them; you're just doing something better. If it makes you feel bad because of what is happening to them, then hire some of them. I can assure you that the job you offer them would mean 100x as much as any handout you could offer.

 

My problem with the Estate Tax is this. The money was taxed once when it was made. How it is right that it's taxed again? (Not black and white, right and wrong) I'm not worried about the Paris Hiltons of the world. Just as the wealth of Rockefellers has been diluted over the years, so will others. I don't envy her, so I feel no desire to take away what she will fritter away on her own.

It's funny: we're so close on so many things. I agree with everything you said about education: I am against forced bussing, in favor of neighborhood schools. I am skeptical about the emphasis on "self esteem" vs. hard work for achievement. I even agree with you on the topic of "too much education". I would like to see the dignifying of work - and a technical or trade education. However, that is never going to happen if we set an agenda that forces American workers to compete with the lowest wages, labor, and environmental standards in the world, while driving wealth at home toward the very top. Ever since Reagan, and the great lie of supply side economics, the move has been to crush unions, to force wages down, to strip benefits, to shift wealth from the middle and lower classes to the top 10%, and more spectacularly the top 1%. If you support the exporting of jobs, if you support a race to the bottom in wages, benefits, and working conditions, if you support conditions that make life miserable for wage earners, then you do not support the dignity and value of productive work. You cannot make conditions impossible for working people, rub the obscene prosperity of the very few in their faces, and expect them to work. Riot and revolt, perhaps. Not work. It's true that most people aren't starving in this country (a few are) - but wealth is relative, and the vast majority see their share steadily eroding, and their conditions becoming more and more difficult. Worker productivity in this country has risen something like 45% since 2000, while wages and benefits for the bottom 90% have declined. Workers (what is left of them) are being squeezed and squeezed and pushed and pushed. It is an indisputable fact that the very wealthy have improved their situation drastically over the last 30 years, while the vast majority have stagnated or slid backwards. Year on year, decade on decade, the wealthy few are gathering a larger and larger slice of the pie to themselves, while the many see their prospects diminish. I am unaware of any moral framework, religious or secular, under which this is considered right and just. And the causes for it are crystal clear. (Once again, I need to point out a simple fact that has been consistently drowned out in a wail of fabricated anti-tax hysteria: US tax burden - all state, local and federal taken as an aggregate, as a percentage of GDP has not changed more than a couple of points in almost 50 years. Tax freedom day came later in 1971 than it did in 2007. Only the distribution of the burden has changed.)

 

Read the Citigroup memo from 2006 link where they coin the term "Plutonomy" - a portmanteau of Plutocracy and Economy - to describe the growing income spread in the U.S.. The report identifies the US, UK, Canada and Australia (Inheritors of the British economic tradition) as "Plutonomy" Countries, and notes that the rest of Western Europe and Japan have a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. If you want to get to the meat, skip forward to pages 10 and 11.

 

p.s. The Estate tax is just that: it is a tax on unearned income of heirs receiving an Estate that was not originally earned by them. The individuals receiving that income - earning it in the one case, inheriting it in the second case, are different individuals, and are not taxed twice. I am not my father. My father's money is not my money, nor was it earned by my efforts. They are each taxed once - just as my company is taxed on income it receives and I am taxed on my paycheck. It is not double taxation, nor is it a tax on the act of dying - vociferous propaganda notwithstanding.

Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny: we're so close on so many things. I agree with everything you said about education: I am against forced bussing, in favor of neighborhood schools. I am skeptical about the emphasis on "self esteem" vs. hard work for achievement. I even agree with you on the topic of "too much education". I would like to see the dignifying of work - and a technical or trade education. However, that is never going to happen if we set an agenda that forces American workers to compete with the lowest wages, labor, and environmental standards in the world, while driving wealth at home toward the very top. Ever since Reagan, and the great lie of supply side economics, the move has been to crush unions, to force wages down, to strip benefits, to shift wealth from the middle and lower classes to the top 10%, and more spectacularly the top 1%. If you support the exporting of jobs, if you support a race to the bottom in wages, benefits, and working conditions, if you support conditions that make life miserable for wage earners, then you do not support the dignity and value of productive work. You cannot make conditions impossible for working people, rub the obscene prosperity of the very few in their faces, and expect them to work. Riot and revolt, perhaps.

 

Given that the country that has recently been wracked by riots has been France (among both native workers and Muslims in the ghettos), which you previously pointed to as an example of a country whose policies we would do well to adopt, I don't know what point you are trying to make by bringing up that as a possible scenario for this country.

 

Unions were crushed in the industrial sector because manufacturing, to remain viable, must continually strive to produce MORE with LESS. The "less" includes fewer workers. Obviously, unions, which collect dues from working members, will resist this. A decline in union membership in a particular industry does not necessarily mean that the industry itself is declining. We've seen this with auto manufacturing and steel. There is still a healthy automobile industry in this country. It just now includes the non-union plants in Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. Same with our steel industry - the old, unionized dinosaur mills were replaced by more agile non-unionized minimills that produce higher quality products.

 

The dirty little secret is that manufacturing is still a strong sector in the U.S. This from a September 3, 2007 article in that well-known right-wing rag, The Washington Post:

 

The United States makes more manufactured goods today than at any time in history, as measured by the dollar value of production adjusted for inflation -- three times as much as in the mid-1950s, the supposed heyday of American industry. Between 1977 and 2005, the value of American manufacturing swelled from $1.3 trillion to an all-time record $4.5 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. (emphasis added) (Hmmm - Looks like the idea that manufacturing is dead in this country is inaccurate.)

 

 

With less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States is responsible for almost one-fourth of global manufacturing, a share that has changed little in decades. The United States is the largest manufacturing economy by far. Japan, the only serious rival for that title, has been losing ground. China has been growing but represents only about one-tenth of world manufacturing. (emphasis added)

 

But if the big picture is brighter than many realize, American manufacturing is nevertheless undergoing fundamental change that is exerting enormous pressure on workers.

 

Imports are rising, now representing a third of all manufactured goods consumed in the country, up from 10 percent in the 1970s.

 

American exports are rising even faster than imports, but companies face intense price competition, with China, India, Brazil and dozens of other low-wage countries now part of a global marketplace for labor and materials. Manufacturers are redesigning production lines to make them more efficient, substituting machinery for people wherever possible.

 

So while American manufacturing is not declining, manufacturing employment has been shrinking dramatically. After peaking in 1979 at 19 million workers, the American manufacturing workforce has since dropped to 14 million, the lowest number since 1950.

 

So it looks as though the nefarious plot by the Reagan Administration to drive all domestic manufacturers overseas and enslave the working man failed miserably. Productivity improvements have been reducing employment in the manufacturing sector. This MUST happen if American manufacturing is to survive.

 

We've seen this firsthand with the domestic auto industry. In her book The End of Detroit, Micheline Maynard quotes a former GM executive who noted that Toyota's U.S. operations could produce the same number of vehicles as GM did with one-third fewer workers. We've seen the results of the UAW and the automakers attempt to resist this trend - the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. When an auto company must employ more workers than necessary, it has to cut corners with the vehicle, overproduce and use fleet sales and heavy incentives to move the metal, or stretch out the time between revamps of the vehicle. The end result, however, is that customers eventually catch on, and will buy higher quality vehicles from manufacturers that don't have to use these tactics to keep the line moving.

 

The remainder of The Washington Post story notes that factory workers need more education to compete. The days of a high-school dropout walking into a factory and getting a $50,000-a-year job are over, thanks to advances in technology, increasing consumer demand for higher-quality products, and the need to keep prices competitive. That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan or the Republicans - except that, for the most part, they are less likely to enact misguided policies that hurt paying customers and drive away businesses in the quixotic quest to "save jobs" or "make life fair" (whatever that means).

 

Worker productivity in this country has risen something like 45% since 2000, while wages and benefits for the bottom 90% have declined. Workers (what is left of them) are being squeezed and squeezed and pushed and pushed. It is an indisputable fact that the very wealthy have improved their situation drastically over the last 30 years, while the vast majority have stagnated or slid backwards. Year on year, decade on decade, the wealthy few are gathering a larger and larger slice of the pie to themselves, while the many see their prospects diminish. I am unaware of any moral framework, religious or secular, under which this is considered right and just. And the causes for it are crystal clear. (Once again, I need to point out a simple fact that has been consistently drowned out in a wail of fabricated anti-tax hysteria: US tax burden - all state, local and federal taken as an aggregate, as a percentage of GDP has not changed more than a couple of points in almost 50 years. Tax freedom day came later in 1971 than it did in 2007. Only the distribution of the burden has changed.)

 

Living standards are not worse than they were in 1980 or even 1970. Virtually EVERYBODY has a higher standard of living than they did in 1970. The idea that everyone except the rich is worse off than they were in 1970 or 1980 is false. If any religious leader would tell me otherwise, I'd sit him or her down and give him or her a dose of the facts.

 

(And please note that distribution of income and living standards are two entirely different measurements. Cuba has a more even distribution of income than the U.S. I doubt that anyone will make the argument that Cubans enjoy a higher standards of living than Americans. I'm more worried about whether the pie is growing than whether everyone gets an equal share. Also note that the European and Japanese models work best in countries with older populations, very slow population growth - or, in the case of Germany, Italy and Japan, a declining population - and a workforce that is not increasing greatly in numbers. Those conditions do not apply to the U.S. The economies of Japan and Europe have been more stagnant than the economy of the U.S. over the long run. )

 

You also have to look at the COST of things - we are paying a SMALLER PERCENTAGE of our income for food and clothing today than we were in 1960 or 1970. Obesity, for example is more of a problem among the lower classes today than it was in 1960 or 1970. Meanwhile, the quality of the food and clothing are much better than they were in 1970 or 1980.

 

Housing prices have gone up, but that has more to do with a speculative bubble (which is thankfully ending - despite misguided efforts to prop up housing prices), local zoning efforts and attempts to preserve green space. The last two have been supported at the LOCAL level by both parties, and have nothing to do with Ronald Reagan or his policies, and more likely to affect housing prices in the future, given that the Great Housing Bubble has now burst.

 

Even if certain items are more expensive than they were, we must look at what we are getting for our money. Cars cost more today (even adjusted for inflation) than they did in 1960 or 1970. So does medical care.

 

Anyone want to drive around in a 1960 Ford Galaxie without air bags, antilock brakes, safety-cell construction and pollution controls, or receive 1970-style medical care after being diagnosed with cancer?

 

You also ignore the effect of illegal (and, in some cases, legal) immigration on wages. When you have a large pool of labor willing to work for less than the locals, that will pull down the wages of everyone in that segment. Note that these people are included in the 90 percent figure that you quote - and will pull down the wages of everyone if they are viewed as a whole.

 

It isn't just Republicans who are working to make it difficult to deport illegals or better control our borders. (San Francisco is a self-designated "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants, and Mayor Gavin Newsom is strong supporter of that status. Gavin Newsom is a liberal Democrat. For that matter, last time I checked, San Francisco was hardly a Republican stronghold.)

 

If you want to crack down on businesses that hire illegals, I'm right there with you, but you'll have to abandon your mistaken belief that only Republican business owners and readers of The Wall Street Journal want to look the other way regarding illegal immigration.

 

In one way, life did get harder. Given that it's very difficult anymore for a high-school dropout to obtain a $50,000-a-year job, we've become less forgiving of people who make stupid decisions. Although government benefits have become more generous - especially for single mothers (check out the rates of single motherhood over the last 30 years). Government benefits help people maintain their lifestyle (in a manner that would make a TRULY poor person from the third world green with envy), but they aren't helping people get ahead. If anything, they reinforce stupid decisions and destroy initiative.

 

The answer there is not to make stupid decisions and expect others to pick up the slack.

 

(Once again, I need to point out a simple fact that has been consistently drowned out in a wail of fabricated anti-tax hysteria: US tax burden - all state, local and federal taken as an aggregate, as a percentage of GDP has not changed more than a couple of points in almost 50 years. Tax freedom day came later in 1971 than it did in 2007. Only the distribution of the burden has changed.)

 

What has changed is who is paying the taxes. The RICH pay most of the federal income taxes - 47 percent of all filers do not pay any federal income taxes. It wasn't that way in 1970.

 

Also note that the rich pay a greater percentage of federal income taxes today than they did during the heyday of 90 percent tax rates on the upper brackets that you recall with great fondness. This has been proven repeatedly by research. You need to look at what people are actually PAYING, not the stated rate. That 90 percent rate is a red herring.

 

Here's the dirty little secret - during those days, there were lots more tax dodges and loopholes that have been closed over the years. People used all sorts of tricks (entirely legal) to reduce their tax bill.

 

It is simply better policy to have lower tax rates with fewer loopholes and deductions. This encourages more people to simply pay their taxes, and divert fewer resources to accountants and lawyers (or lobbyists).

 

It's best not to look at the rates, and instead look at what people are actually paying. The sound policy is to set tax rates at a level that actually raises money because compliance is less expensive than looking for (or lobbying for) loopholes and shelters. Higher rates are therefore often counterproductive.

 

The idea that a few cuts in the federal income tax have caused any imbalance in wealth distribution is not true, when the facts are known.

 

p.s. The Estate tax is just that: it is a tax on unearned income of heirs receiving an Estate that was not originally earned by them. The individuals receiving that income - earning it in the one case, inheriting it in the second case, are different individuals, and are not taxed twice. I am not my father. My father's money is not my money, nor was it earned by my efforts. They are each taxed once - just as my company is taxed on income it receives and I am taxed on my paycheck. It is not double taxation, nor is it a tax on the act of dying - vociferous propaganda notwithstanding.

 

What matters is whether the ASSETS were taxed twice, thus reducing the amount that the heirs receive. All the estate tax does is encourage estate planning designed to avoid the tax (which the really rich can afford more than the moderately rich), add burdens on small businesses and farms, and collect surprisingly little revenue. The woman who wanted to be our First Lady in 2004 - Teresa Heinz Kerry - is the poster girl for why the estate tax is silly at best, and counterproductive at worst.

Edited by grbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What matters is whether the ASSETS were taxed twice, thus reducing the amount that the heirs receive. All the estate tax does is encourage estate planning designed to avoid the tax (which the really rich can afford more than the moderately rich), add burdens on small businesses and farms, and collect surprisingly little revenue. The woman who wanted to be our First Lady in 2004 - Teresa Heinz Kerry - is the poster girl for why the estate tax is silly at best, and counterproductive at worst.

Ah grbeck, you never cease to amaze me. (I didn't say "impress", I said "amaze".) I was wondering when you'd show up. You edited what you had written earlier, because you realized it was open to attack. It was something about "I can do whatever I want with my money...." and my response to that is: Yes, you can give it to whoever you want and, as long as the recipient has a different social security number than you, it'll be taxed. Period. I don't know why this concept of unearned income is so difficult for you to understand. Besides, this issue was decided nearly 100 years ago. Your attempts to upend logic and precedent on behalf of your moneyed friends are sad.

 

I would wade into the rest of your post, but it is much too deep. I will only say that:

- If you want to cherry pick and bend statistics to deny the obvious

- If you want to pretend there's no logical conflict between record exports and manufacturing and a record trade deficit....

- If you want to ignore that this is easily explained by the fact that the Bush administration re-classified the assembly of hamburgers as "manufacturing"

- If your politics leave you so blind to basic human nature that you can't understand that it is relative prosperity, not absolute prosperity that matters in the subjective experience - that makes the difference between hope and despair and that the vast majority are falling behind - or if you're just too callous to care

- If you don't think that the Citigroup memo is truly horrifying

 

Then we have nothing to talk about.

Edited by retro-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- If you want to ignore that this is easily explained by the fact that the Bush administration re-classified the assembly of hamburgers as "manufacturing"

I seen hamburgers and Clinton reworking how they calculate inflation came to mind. If things start going up we'll use hamburger meat instead of steak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah grbeck, you never cease to amaze me. (I didn't say "impress", I said "amaze".)

 

Being correct is more important that impressing people to me.

 

The simple facts are that:

 

*People are not poorer than they were in 1970 or 1980;

*Food and clothing are cheaper, based on income, than they were in 1960 or 1970, and of higher quality, too, and these are directly tied to standards of living;

*Manufacturing is alive and well in the U.S.;

*The top income earners are paying a higher percentage of total federal income taxes today than they were when rates were set much highe in the 1950s and the 1960s;

*47 percent of families do not pay the federal income tax;

*Higher tax rates do not necessarily result in more revenue for the government, and, at a certain point, encourage the use of loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying them;

*Illegal immigrants have a negative effect on the wages of those at the bottom of the income scale (which would depress the wages at the bottom 90 percent if we choose that method of grouping wage earners by income).

 

You edited what you had written earlier, because you realized it was open to attack. It was something about "I can do whatever I want with my money...." and my response to that is: Yes, you can give it to whoever you want and, as long as the recipient has a different social security number than you, it'll be taxed. Period. I don't know why this concept of unearned income is so difficult for you to understand. Besides, this issue was decided nearly 100 years ago. Your attempts to upend logic and precedent on behalf of your moneyed friends are sad.

 

Of course what I post is open to attack. To clear up any confusion, I'll post this here: It is our money. Government must make the case as to why we need to pay taxes; we don't need to make the case as to why we should be allowed to keep what is ours.

 

I am in good company. Please note that Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, fought the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) all the way to the United States Supreme Court to avoid paying $2 million in estate taxes. It's safe to assume, given her position, that Ms. vanden Heuvel is not a closet Republican or Libertarian.

 

Teresa Heinz Kerry used tax shelters in 2003 to avoid paying her “fair share” (at least, as defined by the left) of income taxes. With an overall income of $5.07 million, she was able to shelter $2.78 million from taxation. (The fact that a woman worth $1 billion could limit her overall income to only $5 million is itself a testament to the many havens her battery of tax attorneys found for her wealth.)

 

In another year, Teresa Heinz Kerry drew a taxable income of $2.29 million and paid only $628,401 in taxes. That adds up to an effective tax rate of 12.4 percent of her income, nearly 3.5 percent less than that paid by average taxpayers in 2001 and 15 percent less than the top one percent of income earners, whose tax cuts her husband, Senator John Kerry, pledged to “roll back” in the name of “tax fairness" during the 2004 presidential campaign. (Maybe he was going to exempt his wife - these appears to be standard operating procedure for Democrats when it comes to higher taxes.)

 

If the inheritance tax is so great, then why do people who should support it go to great lengths to either avoid paying it completely, or minimize their payments under it?

 

Of course, not every person with a farm or a small business has the means to employ the best lawyers and estate planners to avoid it. But, as we've seen regarding the payment of taxes by members of the Obama Administration and certain members of Congress, the new credo of the left is "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

Yes, you can give it to whoever you want and, as long as the recipient has a different social security number than you, it'll be taxed. Period. I don't know why this concept of unearned income is so difficult for you to understand. Besides, this issue was decided nearly 100 years ago. Your attempts to upend logic and precedent on behalf of your moneyed friends are sad.

 

Which doesn't prove incorrect that this taxes the same asset twice, which is what ultimately matters.

 

And the idea that we "decided" this issue 100 years ago is not sufficient to stop the conversation about it. Unless Moses carried it down on a stone tablet from the mountain, it is subject to questioning and revision.

 

In the 1869 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, The U.S. Supreme Court decided that separate but equal was constitutional. That changed 59 years later in Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka. We also once thought that women should stay at home and raise children, and that women have a career were harmful to family life. Our view on that idea has changed, too.

 

When it comes to taxation, the "it was settled a century ago" is the weakest of aguments. The economy has changed, and we've had over a century of experience to examine how it works (or doesn't work).

 

I would wade into the rest of your post, but it is much too deep. I will only say that:

- If you want to cherry pick and bend statistics to deny the obvious

 

I believe it's called using facts to prove that there is more to the story than what was originally posted.

 

- If you want to pretend there's no logical conflict between record exports and manufacturing and a record trade deficit....

 

There is one problem with that thesis - manufacturing is not declining in this country; as I've shown, it has been consistent, and remains a huge component of our nation's economy. The manufacturing sector does employ fewer people, because of constant productivity improvements. In GM and Chrysler, we have Exhibit A of what happens when management and a strong union try to resist that trend.

 

Please note that there is no proof that record exports from the U.S. are tied to a record trade deficit. This has been debunked numerous times on this site.

 

If you want to ignore that this is easily explained by the fact that the Bush administration re-classified the assembly of hamburgers as "manufacturing"

 

That is wrong. The Bush Administration PROPOSED making that classification change (which, I agree, was silly and stupid) in a 2004 report. It proposed a change in the definition of what constitutes manufacturing. The Washington Post did not use that classification for its story, and there is no proof that the numbers quoted in that article regarding manufacturing were inflated by adding burger flippers from McDonalds and Wendys to the ranks of manufacturing employees.

 

If you are too blind to understand that it is relative prosperity, not absolute prosperity that matters in the subjective experience - that makes the difference between hope and despair and that the vast majority are falling behind - or if you're just too callous to care

- If you don't think that the Citigroup memo is truly horrifying

 

Please note, for future reference, that differences in viewpoint do not constitute "blindness." And the "I care" badge will not be permitted to be used as a substitute for facts and logic (I thought that liberals were supposed to use those...but now, guess not). I care about facts and history, and the facts show that there is no proof that people are poorer or worse off in this country than they were 30 or 40 years ago.

 

And if relative prosperity were what really matters, then people would not be trying to leave Cuba, the Soviet Union would have been a paradise, because virtually everyone was equally poor.

 

And you can't suddenly change arguments - suddenly saying that "relative" prosperity is what matters when shown proof that the majority of people are not poorer than they were 30 or 40 years ago, which was your original argument.

 

- If you don't think that the Citigroup memo is truly horrifying

 

There is less than meets the eye. It refers to increasing net worth of the rich...which was tied to an inflated stock market and real estate market. Looks like they missed that one.

 

The report was published in 2006, on the eve of the financial meltdown. It's hardly relevant to today's situation. For example, it says that because the rich are going to keep getting richer, it's smart to invest in companies and retailers that provide luxury goods and services. Those companies aren't faring too well in the real world in 2009.

 

It reminds me of those Paul Ehrlich reports that regularly predicted mass starvation by 1975 of 1985 because of widspread fuel shortages, global famines, etc. As has been shown by subsequent history, such reports are better fodder for Hollywood disaster flicks or potboilers than accurate economic forecasting...

 

Then we have nothing to talk about.

 

If you want people to merely agree with everything that you post, then I guess that is true.

Edited by grbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:headscratch: I don't think he saying not to tax them at all...just don't tax them more than you tax anyone else.

Sounds great.

 

After all, why should the US be any different than some 3rd World country?

 

Let the rich take it all, because poor people are disgusting; they're ugly and stupid, too.

 

The brighter, less offensive ones can be taught to read and can be security guards and menials for the gated communities. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds great.

 

After all, why should the US be any different than some 3rd World country?

 

Let the rich take it all, because poor people are disgusting; they're ugly and stupid, too.

 

The brighter, less offensive ones can be taught to read and can be security guards and menials for the gated communities. :)

 

 

Ed this is just ridiculous. By your estimation, the thing that made America great was high tax rates...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you believe you deserve others peoples money or property?

No, the rich should have it all, because obviously, God wants it that way.

 

Problem is, the poor just don't die soon enough, so they hang on, demanding welfare and decent schools. We need a Final Solution for the üntermenschen. Sterilization?

 

Maybe we can develop poor people who live 40-45 years then die. Great savings. Better TV programs. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the rich should have it all, because obviously, God wants it that way.

 

Problem is, the poor just don't die soon enough, so they hang on, demanding welfare and decent schools. We need a Final Solution for the üntermenschen. Sterilization?

 

Maybe we can develop poor people who live 40-45 years then die. Great savings. Better TV programs. :)

 

Are you comparing the idea of a flat tax to Naziism? Just making sure I understand which ridiculous perspective you're coming from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...