General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2263511

    Why is it?

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    Why is it that so many people complain about government at all levels; seemingly distrust all politicians; abhor the political system; recognize rampant waste, fraud, and abuse; see government corruption and undue influence-peddling under every departmental rock; and so on, but they want more of it (more government), not less, and they expect these people to provide the only answer for all their problems?

    Isn’t that like recognizing your accountant as a liar and an embezzler, believing that ALL accountants are liars and embezzlers, but you continue to let him (and them) manage your books anyway, all the while getting angry, wondering where all your money goes? Isn’t that like recognizing your doctor as an incompetent imposter, believing that ALL doctors are incompetent imposters, but you still send your kids to him (and them) for their care, even though some of your kids have been maimed or killed by the quack(s)?

    Why do people wish for MORE of the very thing they continually complain about and despise? Do they really believe that “their guy” will make it all better? Do they actually believe some magical occurrence will cause things to change? Are they really MORE afraid of taking-on the responsibility themselves, not realizing it isn’t that difficult to balance a checkbook or put on your own band-aid? Why do they seemingly want more of the very thing they despise? What is it they really want?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2489100

      People like to complain

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      Its easy to find examples of corrupt politicians (never mind business leaders, police officers, lawyers, relgious officials etc), and its lazy thinking to throw the stereotype up and complain that they are all the same.

      That goes for politicians, Republicans, Democrats, union leaders, Muslims, Americans, Canadians, Christians – every group. Every group is made up of people, and people are flawed(some more than others of course).

      And it is easier to blame someone else – and concede (rightly or wrongly) that since “politicians” are all crooks, then there is nothing they can do about it.

      Sorting through the individuals that make up a group means intellectual effort, and some people are just too lazy.

      As for your larger question – of course many people don’t recognize the contradiction. Many people want more government services, but they want to pay less taxes. They think they are underpaid, and automatically all politicians are overpaid. They think all CEOS are overpaid because they aren’t one.

      You and I may disagree about just how much government we should have, but we agree that it should be less than what we have.

      James

      • #2489062

        “…recognize the contradiction…”

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to People like to complain

        I agree, James: lazy thinking, or perhaps, emotional thinking.

        I do find it amazing that many of the problems these people want solved by government are, in and of themselves, caused by their proposed solutions. A popular term we’ve both heard is “throwing more money at a problem”, which, of course, will only result in more of the same problem (at least in my opinion). Even Ronald Reagan espoused less government, and in his first inaugural address he said, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem”. I find it both sad and ironic that the growth of government and government spending on social programs during his administration is arguably unmatched by any other, with the possible exception of Franklin Roosevelt’s and Lyndon Johnson’s. Sure, there are those who will “blame” those runaway deficits on increased military spending, but that paled in comparison to the faster runaway spending on social programs. And today is no different. The growth in current defense spending is nothing compared to the growth in social spending; so unfortunately, President GW Bush isn’t doing any better. These so-called “fiscal conservatives” are killing our economy AND eating away at personal liberty. Gee, let’s vote for the “other guy”, people will say. Well, look at the bribes ….. I mean programs being espoused by the “other guy”, however, and we’ll see that it’s only more of the same, but just under a different name.

        Another term we’ve both heard is, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”. That’s actually the title of a Milton Freidman book — one that should be required reading in all public high schools! (Unfortunately, many of these public schools would rather require something like, [i]”Heather Has Two Mommies”[/i]!) Of course, people have been brainwashed into actually voting themselves that preverbal “free lunch”. However, as any rational thinking person realizes, someone is paying for the lunch somewhere along the way. People should not be able to vote themselves a lunch that’s paid for with another’s credit card.

        Anyway, contrary to what some people around here claim about me, I’ve never advocated “no government”. In fact, I’ve never even advocated a government that has no place in our economy. As a student (not directly, of course) of both Milton Freidman and Ayn Rand, I believe a balance should be found between a government’s role in a nation’s economy and its infringement on personal liberties. I agree with Freidman when he said that government should be a referee, not an active player. These people with “good intentions” voting themselves active participation by government are killing individual freedom in the process. There is no more balance between government’s role and infringement on personal liberties. The scales are tipped way too far in one direction, and I fear we can’t bring it back into balance. And as long as we have people voting themselves their version of that “free lunch”, it’s only getting worse.

        People complain for the want of “affordable health care”. Unfortunately, “affordable” to them means to get someone else to pay for it. But there’s no free lunch, remember? Someone is paying for it somewhere along the way. And in their quest to get “more affordable health care” (by the means described), they actually get more expensive health care, but paid for with someone else’s credit card!

        More contradictions: People complain about rampant consumerism. Well how about this train of thought? If something is taxed, we get less of it (productivity, earnings, investing, and savings, for example). If something is subsidized, you get more of it (more “need” for health care, housing, “free school lunches”, and so on). If you want to find a bunch of “hungry” people, all you have to do is open a free food pantry in any neighborhood, and they’ll flock to your doors! (But somebody paid for that “free food”.) Anyway, about that complaint I mentioned about rampant consumerism, very few people realize that if consumer goods were taxed instead of income, we’d get less rampant consumerism and more income, investing, and saving. But try to do away with an income tax in favor of a well-structured national sales tax, and people go bonkers. Again, this is a case in which people are complaining about the very thing they, themselves, facilitate.

        I just don’t get it. And I also don’t get (and won’t tolerate) people who refuse to engage in reasonable dialogue. (Of course, that’s not talking about you, James. We’ve always had reasonable dialogue.)

    • #2489079

      … and this thread is a fine example of the complaint phenomenon

      by drowningnotwaving ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      Get it into your head, Max.

      No one that I have read in these threads advocates MORE government than we have now.

      To take James’s excellent sentence:

      [i]You and I may disagree about just how much government we should have, but we agree that it should be less than what we have.[/i]

      Invariably your interpretation of some of us, saying we need ‘some’ government, is that we are advocating MORE than we have now.

      That is the filtered interpretation YOU choose to adopt and thus manipulate.

      Or Max, do you hold to a fundamental premise that, unless we agree with your singular model, we cannot enter into discussions?

      Take James’ sentence literally – we disagree to the extent but we agree on the need to reduce.

      We disagree on the services that a government should offer but even you agree that they are needed to some extent.

      So, to fixes.

      Your suggested change to the focus and drive of the education system was excellent.

      I completely agree with that. I’ve been involved for many years with “Young Achievers” on a volunteer basis a) becuase it is totally positive and b) it’s a truckload of fun.

      I’ve given a (quite possibly an incredibly naive) idea on how to increase the opportunities and empower people whilst at the same time reducing the tax burden.

      http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=207142&messageID=2145454

      So, get specific again. How are you practically going to reduce your government and tax burden?

      And your arrogance is a thing to behold, but I know even you are not so arrogant or blind to think this a US-centric phenomenon.

      • #2489048

        The call for “free” health care

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to … and this thread is a fine example of the complaint phenomenon

        is a call to increase the size of government by incredible amounts.

        The call for the US Government to “rebuild New Orleans” is increasing the size of government. Especially if they are dumb enough to want to rebuild under sea level again.

        Most recently, anyone with half a clue knows that the US Social Security system is in deep trouble and is going to collapse under it’s own weight, yet dishonest people want to GIVE this benefit to ILLEGAL ALIENS that have been here for 18 months. A US Citizen has to work for 10 years to get benefits. We clearly need some chlorine added to the liberals gene pool.

        • #2489035

          Your post just made me ill

          by av . ·

          In reply to The call for “free” health care

          Its bad enough that billions of our tax dollars were mishandled with Katrina, but it p*sses me off big time that Illegal Aliens that have worked here illegally for 18 months using phony social security numbers could be entitled to Social Security if Bush signs it into law. What a kick in the as* to the legal taxpayers in this country.

          🙁

        • #2489014

          Hands airsick bag to AV

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Your post just made me ill

          I was pissed when I heard about it, and nothing has changed since.

          For years I have heard how SS will not be there when I retire, and now we are going to give what little benefits are left to criminals instead of people that deserve it. Illegals only deserve a quick ride to the boarder and a boot over the fence with only the clothes on their back.

          Their families miss them? They can always go down to Mexico to visit.

        • #2488828

          It’s good to disagree, but what have you done about it?

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to Hands airsick bag to AV

          Did you contact your federal representative (i apologize, being from Canada, i don’t know if that is your senator or governor) and tell him or her of your disagreement?

        • #2486677

          I just heard about it today

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It’s good to disagree, but what have you done about it?

          And will be writing several letters tomorrow. Spent most of today in meetings.

          No way should we bust the already hurting system for criminals that are not deserving of a penny, nor do they legally have any claim to any benefits.

        • #2489023

          Come on now – down off the soap box, give us a solution

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to The call for “free” health care

          How about this?

          Why don’t we accept as a truth that:

          *** You can give a zillion instances of rape and pillage of the government coffers in the guise of social security.

          *** I can give a zillion instances of death and maiming by overzealous and greedy individuals and companies, nto to mention infringing upon my individual rights.

          Here’s your opportunity to put practical ideas on the table about how to SOLVE your perceived problem.

          I know solving isn’t as much fun as complaining.

          But why don’t you just give it a go?

          PS: I can promise you I have never asked for a free health system in the USA.

        • #2488997

          The government is not here to solve YOUR problems

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Come on now – down off the soap box, give us a solution

          It is there to keep the borders safe and secure.

          The more we increase taxes to support a gift society, the harder it is for people to make ends meet on their own.

          We have law enforcement to prevent the “death and maiming”. I suppose you have an example what it is that is suppose to mean, because I have no idea.

          We stop the WASTE in government. The first thing politicians do whenever they are TOLD to cut costs is to cut the programs people FEEL the absence of so they will stop asking for cuts. And the stupid among us fall for it everytime.

          Stop anything more than bare minimum of a safety net. If you don’t have a job, no, you don’t “deserve” luxuries in life. You EARN them and are owed nothing in life.

          Social Security. Stop the raiding of the funds that has been going on for generations.

          We have a free educational system. If people choose not to make the most of it, too bad.

          Companies infringing on your individual rights? Not likely. Are they forcing you to buy their product?

          It is government that artificially inflates prices by putting “sin taxes” on products. Half of the price of a pack of smokes is taxes. The government gets more “profit” for every gallon of gas sold than the “big oil companies” the dishonest idiots always cry about. Ask the brits what it is like to have government jack up the price of “petrol” via taxes.

          Get a fair tax system that does not punish people for being prosperous. This taking a higher percentage RATE of a higher amount is dishonest and punishes people for working hard. The more this happens, the more people look for ways to “shelter” THEIR money so liberals don’t steal it. When there are tax breaks offered, it isn’t worth the effort to hide it, and a higher amount of taxes actually ends up getting collected. It has been proven every time.

          Here in the US we hear about the deficit all the time. The problem is NOT a shortage of funds. The problem is an over spending. Having liberals in charge of money is always a bad idea, and GWB is way too liberal.

          Personal responsibility. People have the means to be a success if they apply themselves. If they choose not to, then let them live at the standard of living they have earned.

          The main thing is, you can not help the poor poor by trying to drag the “rich” down to their level.

          And I never said that YOU had asked for anything in the US.

        • #2488974

          Great, thanks – some ideas

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to The government is not here to solve YOUR problems

          First off, in certain circumstances, the government is here to solve at least some of my problems. AGREED as a referee, not a participant. But I will accept that your point is aimed at my personal wealth, health and pursiut of happiness.

          Saying “Stop Waste” is great, gets nods of heads, makes it difficult to argue against.
          Problem is that it just doesn’t actually propose any practical steps.

          -> Where exactly would you tackle waste, in what priority?

          For example, is your quality of life entirely beholden upon there tiers of government (fed, state and local) and all the inherent, pure, utter waste that this structure entails?

          {And that’s not just a US problem by the way – the same problem affects lots of places}.

          -> And on waste: Can we agree on this? “I think we could immediately slash X% off our expenditure for all government departments and demand the same output from them, just due to laziness, inertia and public sector mentality”.

          We may argue the X to and fro but of the actual issue we are in complete agreement.

          Out of interest would you include the defence department in that?

          Because that would fund the changes, retraining / rebuilding of the teacher workforce and the overall re-emphasis required in the entire school system to focus on self-worth and self-responsibility.

          I am sure no-one thinks we could re-aim the entire education network at no cost.

          And with that change under way we can actually agree to positively address the issue you raise by a long term change in attitude, education and outlook:

          [i]Personal responsibility. People have the means to be a success if they apply themselves. If they choose not to, then let them live at the standard of living they have earned.[/i]

          Excellent. Between us we’ve cut expenditure (including defence) and funded the changes to improve the overall education system and re-aim it at something worthwhile.

          [i]Get a fair tax system that does not punish people for being prosperous.[/i]

          Fair point, good objective. Agreed. Now, how do you actually do it?

          I agree 100% with Max. An indirect taxing system that truly taxes all transactions where goods or services change hands.

          We could easily, with a small indirect tax on every purchase, cut income tax to shreds if not eliminate it entirely.

          Problem is that it’s politically impossible to sell to the voters. Every single country, with the possible exception of New Zealand, has struggled and in making compromises has not achieved the cuts in personal tax that were promised (go figure).

          And in agreement with one of your fundamental premises, in trying to stop or cease the black market, indirect taxes actually encourage it.

          Here’s a couple of other major hurdles but not necessarily insurmountable under any circumstances:

          -> How would you propose you “deal” with the fundamentally aging population that will occur for at least the next 40 years? {Soylent Green is a cool idea but probably not practical}.

          -> Since your proposal is founded upon making the populous accountable and less reliant, let’s go forward on a notion that you are basically successful.

          Out of curiosity, what is it that they actually do? Have you thought that far ahead or is this just a Nirvana that will take care of itself?

          If you take Max’s example of the late 1700’s through mid 1900’s as the “ideal time” when conditions were best to support this concept, how do you fundamentally stop the same cycle from happening again in a hundred years?

          In short – if it was ‘ideal’ then but ‘now’ is the result (that you seem to despise), how do you propose to break the cycle?

          {“Ideal” of course for anyone except women, african-, asian-, native indian- or south-american folk of course. But we’ll let that slide}.

          I appreciate your answers thus far.

        • #2488821

          Waste

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Great, thanks – some ideas

          Ohio, for example, has over 300 “departments”. Over 90% of these have functions that overlap functions of other departments.

        • #2486947

          Structural issue

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Waste

          Ohios number of departments (which is truly bizarre BTW) is less an argument against more or less government programs per se than against badly structured government

          For example, our new conservative government in Canada just transfered a half billion dollar a year training program down to the provinces, who had similar programs. There are no guarentees that the province will run it efficiently, but eliminating the duplication is worth something.

          In Canada, its less a question of the number of departments than the overlap between the feds and the provinces.

          James

        • #2486917

          “eliminating the duplication”

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Waste

          Perhaps we need another department for that 🙂

        • #2486910

          Actually we do

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Waste

          In Canada (and in the provinces) we have a position called auditor general, and they have a department which conducts research into government spending and program effectiveness. Every year we look forward to the report which outlines their findings.

          The auditor generals report has had major impacts on the course of the country – leading to cabinet resignations and the cancellations of major programs.

          James

        • #2486920

          Pretty long, but I gave it a shot

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Great, thanks – some ideas

          [i]Saying “Stop Waste” is great, gets nods of heads, makes it difficult to argue against.
          Problem is that it just doesn’t actually propose any practical steps.
          -> Where exactly would you tackle waste, in what priority?[/i]
          [b]
          First, hold politicians accountable for what they say and do. There are a lot of issues that come before the senate that don’t have a chance in hell to pass, but they put them up so they can say the other party “XYZ” (yes, all parties do this and it is dishonest of all parties)

          Funding should then go in the opposite direction. Pay for the necesties first (fire/police/military) and THEN start funding other expenditures with what is left over NOT letting the government spend more than it brings in. THIS would force them to start making the real hard choices.

          All the money WASTED on crap like “dung jesus” should be cut first. You want to express yourself? Knock yourself out! Do it with your own money.
          Cut some of the red tape that causes waste because of redundancy. Run government like a business (just not seeking a profit). You don’t just cut the bottom people to save money when one administrator makes more than ten front line grunts. Cut the Administrators job, or at least pay.

          Get Government out of the business of trying to take care of people. They do a poor job every time, no matter which political party is banging their chests at the time. The funding of charities (yes, including our fairly new “faith based inititives”) that have a more direct effect on the people that need the help instead of most of the money being eaten up by the machine on the way to the people. Give funding to soup kitchens and worker programs, and you have your “safety net”. Give tax breaks to companies that make donations to charities and put back into their communities (more than they are getting now). Sure, less tax dollars comes into the government, but you also have more going directly to the people that need it, so there is less NEED for the government to have the money.[/b]

          [i]For example, is your quality of life entirely beholden upon there tiers of government (fed, state and local) and all the inherent, pure, utter waste that this structure entails?[/i]

          [b]my quality of life is determined by how hard I am willing to work. I do not receive any kind of aid or assistance from the government. Just give me a good road to drive on and keep taxes reasonably low so I get to keep enough of what I earned so I can continue to work to improve MY quality of life.[/b]

          [i]{And that’s not just a US problem by the way – the same problem affects lots of places}.[/i]
          [b]being a “dumb American”, I can only comment on what I am directly familiar with, but much can be applied to anywhere honest, hard working people live.[/b]

          [i]-> And on waste: Can we agree on this? “I think we could immediately slash X% off our expenditure for all government departments and demand the same output from them, just due to laziness, inertia and public sector mentality”.[/i]

          [b]I do NOT agree someone can artificially pick a number to slash by. It really has to be a case by case issue. Look at the expenditures and be forced to justify them at every step. What is the ROI? The general idea that a lot can be cut for the reasons you gave I agree with. government employees tend not to be as “urgent” because in many cases it is not as dog-eat-dog as it is in the “real world”.

          A realistic look at what is being paid and offered as far as benefits to government workers should be addressed as well. Also our represenatives should not be ALLOWED to have a separate benefits package than the rest of the real world. Same retirement package as anyone else would get. If they were forced to be in the same system, you can bet your a$$ they would fix it.[/b]

          [i]Out of interest would you include the defence department in that?[/i]

          [b]Defense should still have to justify their expenses. Give them what they need, as long as they don’t “need” a $2000 hammer.[/b]

          [i]Because that would fund the changes, retraining / rebuilding of the teacher workforce and the overall re-emphasis required in the entire school system to focus on self-worth and self-responsibility.[/i]

          [b]The feel-gooders have ruined our educational system, to make a peasent class. There are people that get their political power by catering to people that won’t do for themselves. By keeping their education poor, they will spend their time watching “American Idol” instead of following local politics. The Corrupt Teachers Union has opposed EVERY attempt to hold them accountable for doing their job. In the real world, we get evaluated based on our job performance. If we do well, we get a raise. If we do poorly, we get replaced. Teachers for some reason think they should be above this, and not be judged by the job they do. The only solution for them is to throw more money at the problems. As we have seen, private schools turn out students with a better education for quite a bit less cost per student. This shows that more money is not the solution. Oh yeah, top administrators making 300k is a crime, or at least it should be.[/b]

          [i]get a fair tax system that does not punish people for being prosperous.
          Fair point, good objective. Agreed. Now, how do you actually do it?
          I agree 100% with Max. An indirect taxing system that truly taxes all transactions where goods or services change hands.
          We could easily, with a small indirect tax on every purchase, cut income tax to shreds if not eliminate it entirely.[/i]

          [b]charging for goods and services is “fair”. The more you make, the higher ticket items you purchase. Of course you have to watch for the class envy that is running wild where entire industries are taxed or regulated out of existance. Luxury taxes are one of the most unethical things I can think of, when it comes to taxing people. If people are buying that fancy luxury item, other people have a JOB MAKING that luxury item. Tax the hell out of it and people don’t buy it. People don’t buy it, Thank you Democrats for putting people out of work because of the dwindled market.[/b]

          [i]And in agreement with one of your fundamental premises, in trying to stop or cease the black market, indirect taxes actually encourage it.[/i]

          [b]This is where REASONABLE taxes are needed. When some money leaching politician decides they want to take more of your money for other goods, it raises the price. If the price is not raised excessivley, there isn’t as much of a savings, and thus not worth the risk.[b]

          [i]Here’s a couple of other major hurdles but not necessarily insurmountable under any circumstances:

          -> How would you propose you “deal” with the fundamentally aging population that will occur for at least the next 40 years? {Soylent Green is a cool idea but probably not practical}.[/i]

          [b]What did people do with the old 1000 years ago? Government did not support these people then, and it is not the job of government to do so now. Set guidelines that help to control costs of health care. AFFORDABLE health care, not “free healthcare”. No one has a right to ANYTHING for “free”. Give tax breaks to families that take in their parents, so they can keep more of THEIR money so spend on the care of their family. The idea of just shipping mom/grandma off to a home somewhere is a fairly new idea. If they can afford it, let them go to their retirement home. If they did not, well, they won’t have all the nice things that people that DID plan for retirement will have, now will they?[/b]

          -> Since your proposal is founded upon making the populous accountable and less reliant, let’s go forward on a notion that you are basically successful.

          Out of curiosity, what is it that they actually do? Have you thought that far ahead or is this just a Nirvana that will take care of itself?

          [i]If you take Max’s example of the late 1700’s through mid 1900’s as the “ideal time” when conditions were best to support this concept, how do you fundamentally stop the same cycle from happening again in a hundred years?[/i]

          [b]Sorry Max, but didn’t read your example yet, so can’t comment about it.[/b]

          [i]{“Ideal” of course for anyone except women, african-, asian-, native indian- or south-american folk of course. But we’ll let that slide}.[/i]

          [b]I assume you mean during that time frame because rights were not quite so equal back then? If you look back, this was not a new thing invented by that era. There have been slaves and war since the begining of recorded time. Something we often overlook when people talk about slaves in the US, is it was the black Kings in Africa that were selling off the conqured tribes, which proved the product the world. If you see something for sale, you buy it. It was all rationalized away of course, just as it has been for centuries before that. Times changed.[/b]

        • #2488418

          “You want to express yourself?…Do it with your own money.” Agreed.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Pretty long, but I gave it a shot

          You don’t have to appreciate religion to see that it is an abomination against logic and integrity to have a single entity on the one hand offering tax benefits to religious organizations and direct handouts to ‘faith-based initiatives’, while on the other hand funding ‘art’ that gratuitously parodies the same religion. The government is not god, and is not excused if the ‘left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing’.

        • #2488705

          Sorry JD Quick I have been slow

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Pretty long, but I gave it a shot

          but will respond since you took the time to answer. Apologies and thanx for your patience.

        • #2488701

          Please open a new account as jd-quick

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Pretty long, but I gave it a shot

          If you need an extra email address, you can still get a free one somewhere, I’m sure. I changed my own TR sign-in instead of taking the advice I’m giving you now, and it distracted even me. Those of us who already know and abhor you will recognize your writing style. Newbies shouldn’t have to figure out why you’re being called “Clyde” in old posts while they’re trying to learn how to delete the entire registry.

          😀

        • #2488690

          Grand advice AB

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Pretty long, but I gave it a shot

          but it won’t be staying. just playing along with a joke for a day or two. ;\

          Will be back, as good as new, soon enough.

          As for the noobs, they deserve whatever they get! 😀

        • #2488447

          Reply to jd

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Pretty long, but I gave it a shot

          Um, not much to say but YES.

          A couple of the points that I did not write clearly enough:

          [i]For example, is your quality of life entirely beholden upon there tiers of government (fed, state and local) and all the inherent, pure, utter waste that this structure entails?[/i]

          What I was referring to was that in the US, … similarly in Canada, Australia, Germany and others … There are three tiers of government – local, state/provincial/regional and federal.

          Surely ONE of those tiers could basically just be dumped. Gone. Kaputski.

          Constitutionally improbable and emotionally / historically extremely difficult to do, I am fully aware.

          But the question I was asking was: does paying for three tiers of government, in and of itself, enhance your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

          From you: [i]Also our represenatives should not be ALLOWED to have a separate benefits package than the rest of the real world. Same retirement package as anyone else would get. If they were forced to be in the same system, you can bet your a$$ they would fix it.[/i]

          Amen. This is seemingly universal. How did it happen in the first instance? Is it quite possibly the most basic single point of inherent corruption in the mechanics of politics?

          I’d rather pay fair market value (and I am sure we each have an idea of what that may be!!!) as long as they played by the same rules they force me to play in.

          From you: [i]I assume you mean during that time frame because rights were not quite so equal back then?[/i]

          Yes, but I wasn’t referring to slavery for exactly the points you make.

          Just simply that in excess of 50% of the population did not have access to l/l/&tpoh.

          I appreciate your response.

        • #2486785

          Heck JD

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The government is not here to solve YOUR problems

          [i]Half of the price of a pack of smokes is taxes.[/i]

          almost a third of everything is taxes… Taxes on cigarettes are just more obvious.. The average “Tax Freedom Day” was April 26th last year. http://tinyurl.com/ye6obs

          I just shook my head the other day… my favorite gas station just started charging 75 cents to use their air hose… 81 cents with tax 🙁

        • #2486779

          charging for air…..

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Heck JD

          Back in the day, I worked at a service station. It was right at the time when some of the stations had just started putting the crappy little pay pumps in. We didn’t have that.

          People would come in and ask “Do you have free air?”

          My answer was always “Sure do! Breath all you want!” :^)

        • #2486777

          Tax freedom day means

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Heck JD

          People are forced to labor 4 months out of every 12 just to pay taxes. (And that does not include sales taxes, et al, that we pay year-long). Considering that 60 percent of the federal budget if taken up by scores of social programs — that is, programs that TAKE the dollars from the person who earned them, and GIVES those dollars to a person who did not earn them, plus 15 percent of the budget that pays debt interest on previous payments, that means 75 percent of those 4 months goes to other people, not government infrastructure.

          That means for THREE MONTHS of the average person’s working year, he/she IS FORCED TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF ANOTHER PERSON. One hundred fifty years ago, we called “forced labor to serve another” slavery.

        • #2486774

          jd – working in gas stations

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Heck JD

          I did it for years — free air and all. I even filled the tires FOR them. And I even washed the windows. Not all bad, however, as that was in the day of the miniskirt!

        • #2486679

          The social life of the third shift worker

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to jd – working in gas stations

          It was amazing the social life. Lots of women would come in to see you at all hours of the night. Would have to give “tours” of the back room.

          The boss let me do as I pleased because my drawer was always right, the place was clean and stocked, and I walked in on him doing a line one day. :0

          That, and would finish all my work right away, then pull my guitar in and get paid to play all night long.

          Life was good, AND I had health care! B-)

        • #2486665

          jd – I worked “at the station” after school. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to jd – working in gas stations

          …..from about 4:00 to 10:00 and all weekend. It was a great experience, in many ways.

          It’s amazing to see the differences between 1966 and 2006. What a difference a few decades makes, don’t you think? And to think, our kids are on the ride to the next few.

          All kidding aside, we’re going in the wrong direction. How in the hell can we turn it around?

        • #2486661

          jd – an addendum

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to jd – working in gas stations

          In 30-40 years, I’ll be dead (or too damn old to give a damn). Why should I care what happens? But I do care. I don’t want my kids to live in a world that seems almost inevitable.

          Socialism came to America about 100 years ago, and it’s been chipping away at our way of life ever since. There were TWO watershed years for that infiltration of socialism: the first was 1932; the next was 1964. And the current crop of Americans are too damn stupid to see the obvious. And they DO NOT understand our history. True personal freedom and individual liberty are, apparently, a thing of the past. Is it too late to turn the tide?

          P.S. Concerning my “stupid” comments. I stand by them (not for you, jd, of course). I’m often accused of being too rigid — e.g. I’m “right” and others are “wrong”. Well, I AM right; and those idiots (you know who you are) ARE wrong. But like I said, I’ll be dead and gone. It’s your friggin’n bed that you made, and it’s you (or your kids) who will have to sleep in it. People like TonyTiger, jd, and others (and me) are doing what we can to reverse the tide, but your stupidity and instant-gratification thinking is winning. I hope you’re happy.

    • #2489052

      A couple of possibilities

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      1. It’s like getting addicted to the slot machine (“Maybe if I put just a little more in, I’ll hit the jackpot.”).

      2. It’s not [b]all[/b] politicians. It’s all of them except for [b]theirs![/b]

    • #2489050

      The people that want more and more

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      only trust the people “that care” enough to give THEM the handouts. Well, I don’t think they actually trust them, but they will put up with almost anything if it keeps the gravy train rolling.

      We talk about “cutting the pork”, yet the senators that bring the most Federal dollars back to their states are the ones that get re-elected.

      Trust and hypocrisy. We are going to see a lot of it soon. Heard on the radio that Obama admitted to heavy drinking, a bad coke addiction, and smoking pot. The dishonest that have been railing against Bush for his drinking problem of decades ago, will be the first to praise Obama for his courage and will to overcome his addiction. I know we will not see someone like JCK come out calling him “druggie Obama” like he did Limbaugh or “drunk Obama” like he did Bush, and neither will the rest of the dishonest left.

    • #2489025

      What do people want?

      by av . ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      It depends on whether you’re a giver or a taker. Those that take, or depend on the government to supplement their lives, want more, always. They either can’t or won’t take responsibility for themselves and never will.

      Those that give, want to give less of their tax dollars and will vote hoping that “their guy” will stem the tide of entitlement programs they have to pay for. I’m talking about regular, working people, not the Bill Gates’ type.

      Government is different than a doctor or accountant. You have a choice of which doctor or accountant to use. You don’t have a choice of whether you want to pay taxes. Sure, Democrat, Republican, Independent; its all the same. You’re still paying, unless you’re a taker.

      • #2489019

        Giver or taker? No, not even close. Try this:

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to What do people want?

        A taker or a takee. A taker is the one who takes; the takee is the one from whom it’s taken.

        Giving or give or giver has nothing to do with “take”.

        “Give” assume free will. Take assumes it’s against someone’s will.

        If you want to “give”, go ahead and give all you want. But whan you presume to “give” that which is not your’s, it’s taking — regardless of how you try to justify it.

        • #2488968

          Indeed. When I’m given something, I receive or accept it.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Giver or taker? No, not even close. Try this:

          I don’t take, and I have never trusted [b]anybody[/b] who says that “give and take” is a valid relationship among people.

      • #2489011

        Even the “givers” are takers

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to What do people want?

        Why can’t you see the obvious? When you give something that is not yours, you take ….. and take ….. and take ….. and take …..

        • #2486667

          Maybe I was being too simplistic

          by av . ·

          In reply to Even the “givers” are takers

          I wasn’t talking about giving anything that wasn’t mine. I was talking about being a US taxpayer who pays their taxes because they have to. Its out of my pocket. Of course, the less I have to pay the better. But I still have to pay.

          The government takes from us taxpayers to give to those that know how to work the system.

          I don’t agree with all the entitlement programs that our tax dollars go to whether we like it or not either. Its just a big, mismanaged black hole for money that isn’t fair to honest, hard-working people. Most of the “needy” people taking advantage of those programs aren’t needy at all, they’re lazy.

        • #2486652

          “Entitlement” Programs

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Maybe I was being too simplistic

          Whenever you support an “entitlement” program, whether that be welfare, Social Security, national health care, Medicare, Medicaid, or whatever, by definition, it’s a program that takes money from a wage earner, and gives it to a wage taker — wages another person labors to earn. That’s the bottom-line, AV. It doesn’t matter how a person might spin it; it’s TAKING from one person and giving to another. It’s either right or wrong, with no in-between.

          I stand firm on the principle that it’s wrong. Others will stand firm advocating a collectivist system. All too many people are caught in the middle, being torn between their principle and their sense of compassion. I suspect you’re caught in the middle — [i]Clowns on the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you.[/i] (Due credit to Gerry Rafferity)

          Take a stance, AV. It’s either right or wrong. It’s either good for the future, or it’s bad. I submit to you, it’s both wrong and bad.

        • #2488760

          OK – I’m absolutely against entitlement programs

          by av . ·

          In reply to “Entitlement” Programs

          I used to be more compassionate, but now that I’m older and wiser and definitely more jaded, I don’t agree with entitlement programs, I’m sick of them. I’m in the 50+ boat just like you. I’ve paid tons of property taxes in NJ over my lifetime for the education system here (and never had a child in the system) aside from what I pay in federal taxes for other entitlement programs.

          Do you think I like that? You must be joking. I just don’t know what to do about it. I don’t see a way out of it. I’d like to take my social security that I’ve paid for over the past 40 years and invest it myself for me. I worked for it. Can I do it? No.

          If I want to support a charity, thats my choice and I do that. I don’t like having the government skimming off the top of what I make and giving it to people that are just scamming the system.

          So there you have it. You and I agree.

    • #2489010

      11 posts, 28 complaints, 1 suggestion

      by drowningnotwaving ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      Not a bad effort so far.

      Positively leftist in outlook, if one was to adopt the stance pushed by many writers in this thread that lefties don’t make suggestions.

      A good suggestion on national sales tax from Max. A bit thin on detail given the enormity of the task but it’s a start. Interesting question on the disproportionate increased burden on small business owners, and how their right to see their kids for a few hours a night is infringed upon.

      But as a concept it works and it also has a proportional aspect in that the rich pay more than the poor.

      Or is it the poor who pay more, as it is unlikely that someone earning $100k per month spends as high a proportion of their income on stuff as someone earning $2k?

      Oh god who knows? That one’s worthy of a thread all on its own.

      SO COME ON you genii !! Start the year with a real change! Stop just complaining!

      Make some suggestions on practical methods of changing your circumstance.

      [b]Are you part of the problem or are you part of the solution?[/b]

      {Sorry after all the chat about the “there’s no free lunch” I simply couldn’t resist inserting a gratuitous phrase. Apologies.}

      • #2488972

        Dare I try?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to 11 posts, 28 complaints, 1 suggestion

        Solutions? Most of the time, people can’t agree that there’s even a problem. Step one in arriving at ANY solution is admitting there’s a problem. I can’t even get people to agree that the myriad social programs are a problem — they want more of the same. How is that a “solution”?

        Nonetheless, I have proposed solutions, but people simply don’t attempt to understand them, or, like I said, admit there’s a problem.

        Solution One (Social Security):

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=207019&messageID=2145548

        Solution Two (Taxation):

        (Disclaimer on number two. If you’re not prepared to spend at least one hour and READ ALL THE INFORMATION, you can’t possibly understand its intent.)

        http://www.fairtax.org/

        Solution Three (Schools):

        Continue funding public schools with tax dollars, but the funding stays with the kids, not the schools. The parents will then have freedom to choose the right school for their kids, and true competition will improve quality and reduce costs. Kids from low income families don’t have a chance to break the cycle of poverty if they’re forced to attend lousy schools. Give the poor kids the same opportunity as kids from families that are better-off by giving them the same school choices. Sure, some schools would fail — the BAD ones — and good ones would take their place.

        Solution Four (Health Care):

        Change the national dialogue so that people aren’t brainwashed into thinking they’re “entitled” to health care at another’s expense. Where’d that silly notion come from anyway? Break the medical monopolies, and open up the industry to true competition. Eliminate the ridiculous medical lawsuits that are only paid for, in the long run, by the medical consumer. Separate the medical and insurance industries; they’re currently joined at the hip. The person is the consumer of health care, not some insurance company. For the most part, insurance companies could be eliminated if people were willing to just pay as you go. If you visit the doctor or break an arm, pay the damn bill and stop expecting another person or an insurance company to pay. By reducing the non-medical overhead, the cost of delivering health care would plummet. If insurance was used for ONLY major medical issues, the cost of everything would drop substantially. Any system in which “other people pay for it” will cost more.

        Enough for now.

        • #2488707

          Social Security

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Dare I try?

          We disagree on this: I feel that, exactly like the tax situation, there is a proportion of the populous who need support and assistance. But I think it is small, and their needs are not significantly a burden. But the purpose of this note isn’t THAT gem of a discussion. IN any case those things are more domestic policy than the theory or objective.

          I happily agree on quite a lot:

          That ‘percentage’ or the interpretation has and is (and perhaps will always be) being continually abused.

          The dependance factor is getting bigger. Many left-leaning politicians agree whole-heartedly with this and are putting in measures to have it reduced or stopped.

          If you really want to read about something far away (which I doubt) look up an Aboriginal leader called Noel Pearson and see just what he thinks is ruining his people, and (more importantly and uniquely) the things he has put in place in his community to reduce and hopefully stop dependence.

          “Social Security as a form of enforced savings”? Have I understood the thrust of that correctly?

          In this part of the world there is a process of enforced savings. We call it superannuation. It is a process of a minimum contribution by the employer (essentially a business tax but a very focussed one) plus voluntary contributions by employees.

          It is now completely commercial and competitive. As of last year, “I” have no restrictions on who I can nominate as my investor / fund manager. The amount of funds in this pool in Australia now exceeds $100 billion so you can imagine there are extremely competitive and client-focussed services, reduced fees etc. Nearly every signle major world and domestic bank, finance or insurance company runs multiple schemes from which I have total freedom to choose.

          As a result it’s reasonably easy to acheive in excess of 20% investment returns per annum. In any language, getting 20% consistently on your money over 20, 30 or 40 years will work.

          What’s even better is that the government has indeed made real steps in reducing the double- and triple-taxing of the contributions (that is, taxed when earned, taxed when the investment grows and taxed when drawn down). It still exists, but it is possible to have something like the first $100,000 of drawdown per annum tax free. I think I could party on that much when I am 75.

          The “quid pro quo” is that traditional access to things like the old age pension is becoming (and will increasingly be) severely restricted.

          It is no longer a distant dream/fear, it is now reality that you are being expected to use your own equity to support your lifestyle.

          For example – you own a house? Fantastic. You own a house worth $2 million? Great. (I don’t know what the exact limit is but it exists). Use some of that equity to support yourself.

          So I agree entirely – any government managed scheme to achieve this is a useless waste of time. Anyone in the public sector who thinks they can do this? – f’ck off to a bank and triple your salary. Otherwise don’t delude yourself – you can’t.

          It doesn’t really matter whether you agree or not with a government-enforced savings scheme. It works over here and is well supported. Not universally, but by a supreme majority on both sides of the political spectrum.

          But certainly a government-[b]managed[/b] scheme is a joke. No doubt about that.

        • #2488685

          Problem is,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Social Security

          Social Security is not a form of savings, it is a tax. It is disengenuous of the government to even make it a seperate entry on your pay stub!

          Here’s an example to illustrate:

          George worked at the plant for 45 years. He was married to Edna, who never worked a day in her life outside the home. They had a little savings. So George retires at 70 and starts getting $1900 a month in Social Security. Pretty soon Edna gets sick of him and divorces him.

          They each get half the savings account, as you’d expect, and if Social Security were a savings plan, you’d expect they’d each get half of that too, but that’s not what happens. They each get the full amount! (In fact, many older couples divorce (but continue to live together) for just this reason.)

          Who is paying for the “extra” $1900 every month?

        • #2488661

          Thank you now I understand a lot of your concern

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Problem is,

          That is [b]very[/b] different to here. Both in overall/relative amounts and in manner of administration.

          I’d be pissed off.

      • #2488966

        Start with the largest infractions.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to 11 posts, 28 complaints, 1 suggestion

        There are supposedly millions or billions of dollars going to waste on dishonest contractors in Iraq.

        At the same time or shortly thereafter, it is worth seriously considering the possibility that the administrative costs of government “safety net” agencies are so obscene that those “benefitting” from the safety net would be better off relying on the generosity of strangers and private charities. I know that I am far more careful with my money than the government is: I have [b]never[/b] misplaced $2 Trillion! OK, I have never [b]had[/b] $2 Trillion either, but still, for some reason, people seem to be much more careful with our own money we earned than with everybody else’s money, when entrusted to spend it without having earned it. I don’t know about the rest of you, but if my taxes were reduced I think I would feel more generous, and I’m confident I could find a charity with lower administrative costs than Welfare.

        • #2488965

          Scratch that. Step 1: no free lunches for Senators.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Start with the largest infractions.

          Tom Delay was able to stay close enough to the rules for such a long time, while in fact selling his votes, that I deem the rules insufficient. Politicians should simply be barred from accepting any gifts of any kind. Then we can be sure they aren’t being bribed. Otherwise, we can be sure they won’t work harder for their pay than they have to.

        • #2488888

          Oh come on! Be Fair! Why shouldn’t Tom DeLay “sell his votes”?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Scratch that. Step 1: no free lunches for Senators.

          Tom DeLay, and just about every other member of Congress, “sells” his/her vote to someone, some lobbyist, some special interest group, some “cause” (and I use that word with sarcastic reservation). And why shouldn’t they? That’s just the way it works, right? After all, the people who voted him (and others like him) into office in the first place SOLD their vote to him. Why don’t voters hold themselves to the same standards? And why should voters be “shocked” when those folks do the same thing they did — sell their vote? We have an electorate full of hypocritical “Tom DeLays”!

          Reference:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=207429&messageID=2145719

        • #2486737

          Oh, cr@p, WAY too many analogies to sort right now.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Oh come on! Be Fair! Why shouldn’t Tom DeLay “sell his votes”?

          For now, it will have to suffice for me to say that you put “sell” in quote marks for an important reason, and that the position of elected politician carries with it certain [b]valid[/b] expectations of answerability to the populace, not to one citizen (or group) in favor of another.

        • #2486670

          Dripping with sarcasm, my message was. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Oh, cr@p, WAY too many analogies to sort right now.

          …..as the voter behaves just as the elected does. To the highest bidder, my vote is for sale. For all can be bribed; it will never fail. All will ask, what’s in it for me? They all accept bribes, it’s plain to see.

          (Due credit to Yoda!)

        • #2486636

          Credit also to Doctor Seuss is due, unless coincidental that rhyming was.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Dripping with sarcasm, my message was. . . . .

          😀

          Very nice, either way.

          My serious reply to the first ‘everybody is for sale’ post in a few minutes.

        • #2486634

          I think you’re trying to sell us a bill of goods here.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Oh come on! Be Fair! Why shouldn’t Tom DeLay “sell his votes”?

          OK, I see your point: self-interest is valid, and in principle I agree.

          But, I also see a problem with your model, in that even if I accept that the voters “who voted him (and others like him) into office in the first place SOLD their vote to him,” they also [b]paid[/b] him – [b]directly[/b], a guaranteed, full-time income, a guarantee [b]much[/b] more consistently honored than the campaign “promises” of even the most scrupulous candidates.

          So, if you please, drop the hyperbole or elaborate, preferrably both, because I don’t think anybody is likely to understand the good point you’re making, except those who already agree with your core values.

      • #2486754

        Proportion of income.

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to 11 posts, 28 complaints, 1 suggestion

        Is not relevant.

        The first $xxxx of your income can be assumed to be used for your basic life needs, no matter how much total you earn, so let’s not tax that amount. For [b]anybody![/b]

        What’s left then will be spent on optional goods and/or services (consumed) or invested. The former (optional consumption) should be taxed. For [b]everybody![/b]

        Investments create jobs, thus more people will have more money to consume things, much of which will be taxed, so investment itself should not be taxed, thus leaving more to be invested.

        That’s the basic principle behind the fairtax plan. I believe it could be part of the solution.

        The other part is to keep scratching and clawing at ways to streamline the government. Doing so will reduce the cost of providing services, which will immediately result in the citizens having more to either spend or invest, and eventually result in reducing the [b]need[/b] for many services.

        • #2486668

          Tony – a question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Proportion of income.

          What do you think of FairTax? (See FairTax.org)

        • #2486645

          A short answer :)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Tony – a question

          I like it for a lot of reasons. Everyone will know exactly how much they are paying for their government, and that knowledge will bring power to the consumer. It will enable them to control not only the government with their vote, but business and the government with their wallets!

          It will greatly reduce or eliminate influence peddling by government officials to special interests and instead remind them of just exactly who it is they’re supposed to be working for.

          It will reward hard work instead of punishing it. It will encourage and reward investment, savings and thrift and discourage waste.

          It will spur investment in this country, and make our products and services more competetive both here and on world markets. The demand for our products and services will be so great that workers will be in high demand, and that means higher wages.

          It would, from the moment it takes effect, add over 600 billion dollars a year into the economy (the money that is now used to comply with or find loopholes in the current tax code. This is a cost added to every product and service we buy which adds nothing to the quality or value of that product or service.)

          All of that without cutting one single dollar from any government service! Cuts will happen, but it will be because most of the services will be less needed. People will be happier, and happier people are more generous, and our generosity will spill out… far beyond our borders.

          Some jobs would suffer. IRS agents for one example (Aww…. poor babies…). Social workers for another.

          It’s going to be a hard sell to some though. There are powerful people with powerful interests that thrive on the ignorance, weakness, and misfortune of others. They are the enemy and they must be exposed and defeated.

        • #2486623

          I AGREE entirely

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to A short answer :)

          For all the reasons Tony said.

          I think it CAN be sold but I think it is a very-long-term project.

          I think social workers and tax agents are the least of the problems. Although given how much a lot of tax agents know about a lot of people in decision-making places, it’s not an insiginificant problem.

          Some of that problem will be lawyers whose existence depends upon the 10,000 pages of law, and no doubt the hundreds of thousands of memos, circulars, tax rulings, court pages and interpretations that surround it. They’ll fight it tooth and nail. Considering it’s revenue impact on some extremely major law firms that is going to be a real battle.

          No doubt they’ll too have some hidden secrets in the closet that they’ll remind their local representative about, should their revenue be significantly threatened.

          But the biggest battle are the pollies themselves. Many politicians stand and say they want open government, but when “push comes to shove” not many pollies truly do anything about it.

          As the site says, their ability to hide their actions behind incredibly complex detail is something I think that they will want to keep.

          But that’s not insurmountable – it’s a process of time and education.

          I’ve already tried to find the local equivalent and see what can be done to help the fight. I’ve found a couple that obviously started at some point but seem to no longer exist.

        • #2488421

          “lawyers whose existence depends upon the 10,000 pages of law”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I AGREE entirely

          I think it’s safe to estimate that if no new laws are written, and 50% of all lawyers begin editing existing laws non-stop, as ruthlessly as a Hemingway draft, there would be more than enough work to do for all the lawyers in practice, and in law school, and those entering law school in the next decade, just contesting and interpreting claims based on the current body of law. In short, don’t worry about the lawyers, the full employment scheme of the previous generation of lawyers will keep this generation in Rolexes and luxury cars for the rest of their obnoxious lives.

        • #2488234

          Well, they could always

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I AGREE entirely

          revert to family court, and take up trying to convince divorcing couples why they should spend $20,000 each fighting over a $5,000 car 🙂

        • #2487166

          Hey Max!

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Tony – a question

          Didn’t know if you’ve seen this.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairtax

        • #2486633

          double post

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Proportion of income.

          :p

        • #2486632

          selling the fair tax plan to voters

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Proportion of income.

          Demonstrating that the major proponents have no more vested interest will be necessary to convince current welfare-statists that this is other than a swindle. When it can be shown that even the least taxed earners will pay less, this may have a chance. Alternatively, the middle class could begin to expand again, reducing the percentage of the populace that consider ourselves ‘lower class’, but until the welfare state is abolished, what are the odds of that?

          😉

        • #2486630

          Under this plan. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to selling the fair tax plan to voters

          …..it’s possible, that with very few exceptions, some middle-lower class people could escape paying taxes entirely. Don’t buy a NEW car, but rather one that’s pre-owened — a one or two year old car, and it would be exempt from taxes. How many middle-class people buy new homes? Very few.

          I absolutely love the provision to tax ONLY new purchases — not to mention the allowance for exempting the basics of life, at least to some degree.

          In short, a person could literally design their own life, and decide for themselves what to pay.

        • #2486625

          Sold!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Under this plan. . . . .

          If all that is true, count me in.

        • #2488455

          Actually that’s a potential problem

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Under this plan. . . . .

          In my (quite possibly naive) readings, the provision to only tax new goods is a potential and real problem.

          It’s also an unnecessary qualification on the process.

          Include used goods and simply remove any potential loophole.

          Just adjust the ‘X’ percent accordingly.

          No change to the process, no burden on recalculation, no additional burden on collection or reporting.

          Loophole gone.

        • #2488454

          And you understand that the rich pay for the poor?

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Under this plan. . . . .

          And you realise, of course, that a consumption-based tax must be distributed inequitably.

          It is a fundamental concept of consumption tax.

          The “extent” of your future government is totally irrelevant to the argument. Whether the size of government in the future stays the same, gets less or grows.

          The rich/big states and cities pay for the poor/small states and cities.

          It works for me. As long as your comfortable with that …

    • #2488959

      Simply answered

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

      NB: the majority of voters never complain about the politicians of the party that they support because their daddy and granddaddy supported it. The ones that complain about both parties are the small percentage that think and are often known as swing voters as they swing sides at elections, based on policies, past performance, and people presented.

      • #2488895

        Voters are still bought-off, bribed, etc,

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Simply answered

        People vote their own self-interest, regardless how it might infringe on the rights of others, or how it might be harmful to the larger-interest; they allow themselves to be bribed and bought-off; they vote for short-term, instant gratification reasons, never looking at long term ramifications. I have a low opinion of politicians who use such things — and people — for their own personal gain, and allow the intent of our Constitution to be trampled in the process, but I have a lower opinion of the voters who allow it to happen.

        • #2486626

          I think you could actually be elected using that argument.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Voters are still bought-off, bribed, etc,

          Where you’d have the best chance I couldn’t say, but I think there are enough voters who have had it up to here and feel like their options are always evil vs. the lesser of two evils. Because we have had so few candidates to vote [b]for[/b], I really think you could get votes by telling citizens, basically, that for no constituency under any circumstances will you sacrifice long-term necessities for short-term convenience. I think you could shock the masses into classical liberalism if you stuck to that single theme through any single national campaign. I suppose it’s possible that I’m in a minority of people that see both parties as beholden to a couple of sacred cows, which they cannot cease worshipping without loss of ‘credibility’, even though reality makes their causes unachievable, and undesirable.

        • #2488257

          Thanks, but I don’t think so

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I think you could actually be elected using that argument.

          What will you do for me, they will ask? Nothing, will be my reply, except to nurture a society in which you can do for yourself and choose to help others, if you see fit. I would then ask them if they’ve every heard of a guy named John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy, I would remind them, said to ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. I’d then ask them what they’ve done for their country lately.

          They’d then throw tomatoes at me!

    • #2488868

      The idea of government is good

      by zen37 ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      Without reading the other responses, my point of view is that the idea of what a government should be, at its core, is good. The people in the government make it corrupt, but the idea of it is good. I guess people still believe in the idea of it, which is good in a way, for if they didn’t, anarchy would result.

      In a lot of cases, the government is the best party to support, protect and defend the population. Which is why the government is able to make such things as laws and armies.

      The problem of corruption and abuse is human, not governance.

      IMHO.

      • #2486966

        It depends on how you define government

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to The idea of government is good

        Some peoples’ idea of government is anything but good; in fact, it’s abhorrent. Of course, I have no idea how you define “good government”. Perhaps you’d care to be more specific.

        • #2486930

          I did not say good government….

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to It depends on how you define government

          …but that the idea of government is good.

          In other words, the idea of a democratic process where representative of the people are selected to represent and seek the greater good of their constituents is good. The process however is another story all together.

          But i do agree that “WHAT” the government should be is open for debate. Unfortunately, I’m not sure the middle ground you were talking about in another post can truly be achieved for times change, people change and views are different. These three factors makes finding a middle ground difficult because the process of selection is constantly evolving.

          Just as “HOW” the government governs and operates is open to debate. I don’t like that there is no regulations on campaign cost and how they get their money. I would prefer that everyone over 18 needs to give the government 100$ every year and every 4 years, the total is split between all parties and they can only spend that specific amount of money for their campaign. They cannot borrow money in any way shape or form or get donations in any way shape or form. That, to me anyways, would make them a government for the people, by the people. Every party gets the same amount, no preference, no special deals, no underhanded gimmicks.

        • #2486692

          Hang on …

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to I did not say good government….

          [b]Just as “HOW” the government governs and operates is open to debate.[/b]

          That’s the whole point.

          How they get paid or reimbursed for electoral expenses is a reasonably minor issue in the overall scheme of things, don’t you think?

          I mean, compared to free health, housing and university education of course.

          And free orthodontics as well. 😉

        • #2486676
        • #2486653

          Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to ?

          There’s about a week’s worth of reading there Max. Which I have started.

          Interesting question when you first read the FairTax site:

          –> Did you want to get on your knees and give thanks? Or throw a brick through your PC at the thought of fully funding Social Security and Medicare?

          LOL’ed I did!

          So let me read the site and others. From what I have seen it is almost too good to be true. I did have a laff at some lines:

          [i]Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped.[/i]

          Now there’s a moral dilemna for a freedom-luvin’ man if ever I’ve seen one! Could that phrase be interpreted as a collective decision to disallow personal interest to play a part in the overall process?

          Just joshin. Still reading.

        • #2486647

          You ask, “when you first read the FairTax site”?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          It wasn’t the Web site that I first saw or heard about. The Web site actually came after the proposal — many years ago. I first heard about this movement/proposal at a presentation while attending an economic conference a long time ago. This IS NOT something I just “found on the Web”. It’s something I’ve been privy to for years.

          Do I see myself as “better” than others? No way! Do I see myself as wiser and better informed than others? Absolutely I do. One thing that I suspect you don’t understand about me — I am not a knee-jerk reactionary. I am EXTREMELY informed. Everything I espouse — absolutely everything — has a basis in a core principle. And so many people simply cannot relate and/or debate, because it is THEY who are the knee-jerk reactionists, without a basis in principle.

          There are people who will dismiss me, or try to discredit me, because of what I just said. But some people ARE better informed; some people ARE better educated; some people ARE better suited to see “the big picture”. Public policy should NEVER be established based on an emotional knee-jerk reaction — or the “justification” on which one might rely. Unfortunately, that is the exact thing that defines the “average voter”. And in my opinion, they’re digging their own grave, and they’re nothing but dupes.

          I don’t really give a rat’s ass what you might think about me. In fact, your misguided contempt is obvious. But if you were bold enough to rely on principle instead of emotion, you might come to understand a little better. But then again, some people do not seek to understand. Which are you?

        • #2486643

          I beg your pardon???

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          Two single points:

          1. I AM reading the information you sent. It’s a lot. It’s interesting and educational. I sincerely appreciate it.

          2. I Didn’t write with any contempt whatsoever. If you chose to take it that way then I apologise.

          Lighten up. I did find it funny that, coming from a person with such singular views, the second screen on one of your principle sites said: Fund Social Security and Medicare. That’s all. No deep conspiracy.

          Time for a gin and tonic, Max. It’s not all a screaming match, is it?

        • #2486641

          For the record: “your contempt”. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          …is something you’ve already long established. It’ll take more than one message to erase that image.

        • #2486639

          And by the way. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          …..I prefer scotch.

        • #2486637

          Addendum. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          …..on the rocks.

        • #2486618

          Mr. nowplease, I don’t see any dilemma there…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          [i]Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped.

          [b]Now there’s a moral dilemna for a freedom-luvin’ man if ever I’ve seen one! Could that phrase be interpreted as a collective decision to disallow personal interest to play a part in the overall process?[/b][/i]

          It could be interpreted that way, but the interpretation would be incorrect. We all know that tax breaks for the rich are sold to voters in the name of the “common good”. We all also know that each such special privilege is proven, after enough years and headache-inducing scrutiny, to have an overall effect on our economy that, as asserted, “causes unfair and inefficient distortions”.

          Although your observation was cute and I think you actually understand all that already, I also think issues of taxation, income, and property are too important for “Just joshin” and implying assertions instead of stating them directly.

        • #2488236

          Interpreted.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          [i]Now there’s a moral dilemna for a freedom-luvin’ man if ever I’ve seen one! Could that phrase be interpreted as a collective decision to disallow personal interest to play a part in the overall process?[/i]

          I don’t think so. What it means is that if there’s no tax (on business), there’s no need for tax breaks, and thus no [b]tax related reason[/b] to send lobbyists.

          Of course there will still be lobbyists and special interest groups (1st amendment), but they will be less empowered to use OPM (Other People’s Money) to bribe politicians and would have to rely more on the merits of whatever they’re lobbying for.

        • #2488712

          Well Abs there’s two more problems to deal with ..

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          [i]We all know that tax breaks for the rich are sold to voters in the name of the “common good”. We all also know that each such special privilege is proven, after enough years and headache-inducing scrutiny, to have an overall effect on our economy that, as asserted, “causes unfair and inefficient distortions”.[/i]

          You’re right, no doubt.

          So that’s another significant power base who aren’t going to roll over easily. Because, to use your phrase, we all know the rich have never historically been in the mood to enable lots of other people to try to share that wealth. Because for lots of them, it’s not the freedom or independence, it’s the prestige. Can’t be prestigious when everyone has their own private jet?? And I’m not being cute or facetious. It’s (in my experience) very true.

          So so far on the “other side” we’ve got most politicians, at least 187,000 public servants, an entire accounting and taxation industry, major slabs of the legal profession, and an arguably high proportion of the rich.

          Not to mention major slabs of the transitional period that are yet to be described.

          Like I said in a previous note, I think it is indeed brilliant. I’ve thought a simple indirect tax scheme that has some ‘safe harbour’ provisions for the lower paid echelons. Provisions in the form of rebates or in the form of exemptions is a detail, not a real argument as such – either manner will be open to abuse and “lobbying”.

          That’s a formidable front against it. Not insurmountable but formidable.

          And …

          [i]I also think issues of taxation, income, and property are too important for “Just joshin” and implying assertions instead of stating them directly. [/i]

          I trust you were really just joshin with that. ‘Cos these subjects are NOT things that fall into the category of not making jokes about.

        • #2488704

          re: just joshin

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          No, I really think that the right of people to what we earn, not to what others earn, is a serious matter. While I respect your [i]right[/i] to make light of it in speech, I do not have respect for those who [i]choose, in action[/i], to ignore others’ rights to the wealth we earn. While I certainly respect your right to make jokes, I do not share your amusement, and truly intended to underscore the seriousness and importance of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: that I am neither to be deprived of life, liberty, nor property [i]without due process of law[/i]. Taxes for [i]the common defense[/i] are allowed under the original charter of the United States. Taxes for the redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not earned it is nowhere in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, and the fact that this happens, and is considered ‘legal’, in the United States today, is something I take absolutely seriously, and with terribly ill humor. If you dislike my attitude, I invite you to [b]pay me[/b] to pretend to find socialism amusing.

        • #2488693

          re: two more problems

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          [i]So so far on the “other side” we’ve got most politicians, at least 187,000 public servants, an entire accounting and taxation industry, major slabs of the legal profession, and an arguably high proportion of the rich.[/i]

          Total… maybe 15% of the population.

          [i]Not to mention major slabs of the transitional period that are yet to be described.[/i]

          There are always going to be winners and losers whenever the rules change. It’s unavoidable. Obsolescence occurs in industry all the time… Assembly line workers were replaced by the thousands by robots. What did those who were replaced do?? They found someplace else to use their skills, or learned new ones.

          Also keep in mind, this is not designed to be a single solution to all of this country’s woes. It is designed to fix one problem and one problem only. The overly-complex and overly-corrupt tax system.

        • #2488607

          That’s why you aren’t rich now, Mr. Please.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          [i]You’re right, no doubt.

          So that’s another significant power base who aren’t going to roll over easily. Because, to use your phrase, we all know the rich have never historically been in the mood to enable lots of other people to try to share that wealth. Because for lots of them, it’s not the freedom or independence, it’s the prestige. Can’t be prestigious when everyone has their own private jet?? And I’m not being cute or facetious. It’s (in my experience) very true.

          So so far on the “other side” we’ve got most politicians, at least 187,000 public servants, an entire accounting and taxation industry, major slabs of the legal profession, and an arguably high proportion of the rich.

          Not to mention major slabs of the transitional period that are yet to be described.

          Like I said in a previous note, I think it is indeed brilliant. I’ve thought a simple indirect tax scheme that has some ‘safe harbour’ provisions for the lower paid echelons. Provisions in the form of rebates or in the form of exemptions is a detail, not a real argument as such – either manner will be open to abuse and “lobbying”.

          That’s a formidable front against it. Not insurmountable but formidable.[/i]

          Therefore, what? (Sorry, Maxwell, but this was crying out for it.) One man’s ‘formidable’ is this man’s ‘no problem’.

        • #2488453

          But I am !!

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          I am rich!!!!

          and from that previous note, and on the other thread about selling your freedom and democracy to the highest bidder …

          “Absolutely”: you’re just dumb.

        • #2487319

          dp

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          .

        • #2487241

          re: “your freedom and democracy to the highest bidder”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Great reading and more than a few dilemnas

          [i]and from that previous note, and on the other thread about selling your freedom and democracy to the highest bidder …

          “Absolutely”: you’re just dumb.[/i]

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=207626&messageID=2146742

          From your mindlessly emotive responses and your eagerness to sell [b]my[/b] freedom and democracy to the [b]lowest[/b] bidder, “caniberichnowplease”: you’re just bitter.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=207626&messageID=2147319

          [i]It’s called a cost-benefit analysis
          I’m sure you’ve heard of the process, if (obviously?) not participated in one.

          I do it daily for my job. Have done for 23 years.

          I could tell you specifically how it would be acheived and where the direct costs would be taken out of the government machinery.

          Sorry, but I think your apparent unwillingness to even consider spending money now to reduce expenses later will get in the way of any reasonable discussion.[/i]

          When you grow up and want to have an adult conversation, include in your “cost/benefit analysis” the costs, to whom, and the benefits, to whom. Only [b]after[/b] you have honestly done so will you be sufficiently worthy of my respect to continue this conversation.

        • #2488180

          Unless i misunderstood you , it’s not minor at all…

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to Hang on …

          Who is paying for all the lobbyist at Washington and Ottawa? The politicians provide “services” for the lobbies that provide funding for their campaigns.

          My idea is that the rich could not have more weight in Washington or Ottawa than the poor stiff who works on the production line, which i believe is how it should be. By getting everyone to pay the same amount, at the same time with no preferential treatment, the politicians should actually lead instead of protecting special interest and/or Lobbyists.

          Don’t you think?

        • #2488064

          Think of it another way

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Unless i misunderstood you , it’s not minor at all…

          What do the lobbyists think they are buying?

          I’d bet 90% of it has to do with tax loopholes for businesses. I think a better cure for that is to eliminate taxes on buisness (which just gets passed to the consumer anyway) and income, and tax consumption instead. That way the politicians won’t have it to sell, and you don’t have to violate anybody’s rights to do it. If you want to pay less tax, you are in complete control… simply consume less!

        • #2486622

          Government-funded campaigns can easily be imagined…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I did not say good government….

          favoring incumbents as much as, if not more than, no-holds-barred private financing would favor the wealthy. I counter all proposals of 100% public funding of campaigns with the proposal that all campaigns [b]must[/b] be 100% privately funded, with the requirement to disclose all funding sources, and 5 to life, without parole for lying. Everybody is biased, but my way, the bias that candidates have is most apparent, and we can decide with the most trustworthy data, whose bias to settle for.

        • #2488358

          Campaign finance — What’s the best worst choice?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Government-funded campaigns can easily be imagined…

          Try to limit or obstruct campaign finance, in any way or to any degree whatsoever, and the outcome can be bad. Let it run its natural course, unencumbered, and the outcome can be bad. Try to justify some tweaking to find a middle-ground, and the outcome can be bad. When faced with an undesirable outcome, regardless of the choice which is made, rest on an underlying principle and just let the chips fall where they may.

          Most lobby groups are hated, whether those be in the course of a political campaign or after an election; but most lobby groups are funded by individuals who wish to be heard. Whether it be the NRA or the NEA, their money and influence comes from average citizens who, without the benefit of “their group”, might be left out in the cold without a strong voice. Personally speaking, I’d love to see the “trial lawyers” lobby cut down a few notches; and I’d love to quiet the #!@%&$#@! lawyers who fund and peddle their influence. Trying to squelch them, however, might have some horrible unintended consequences. A better course of action would be to assemble an “Anti Trial Lawyers” lobby, so to speak, and fight their fire with some fire of our own. (Our: Those who may be like-minded)

          Our right to [i]Freedom of Speech[/i] is often misapplied as one’s right to speak freely in a forum such as this. That’s not what it means, however. The First Amendment, taken in its entirety, specifically addresses the issue of lobby groups, although very few read that far.

          [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/i]

          [i][b]”…..and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”[/i][/b]

          That seems pretty clear to me. Let one gun owner, or one teacher, or one farmer, or one lawyer, or one anything try to [i]petition the government for a redress of grievances[/i], and how far might one get? Let a group of them speak as one, however, and their collective voices will speak loud and clear.

          To repeat, when faced with an undesirable outcome, regardless of the choice which is made, rest on an underlying principle and just let the chips fall where they may. Our “principle”, in this case, should be to let them all speak freely and unencumbered. If I — or if we — don’t like what they’re saying, our best recourse is to speak louder. That, in my opinion, is the best worst choice. And I believe that’s why Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Mason made that choice to begin with.

        • #2488708

          “…our best recourse is to speak louder.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Campaign finance — What’s the best worst choice?

          [i]Our “principle”, in this case, should be to let them all speak freely and unencumbered. If I — or if we — don’t like what they’re saying, our best recourse is to speak louder.[/i]

          Let everybody express our ideas to the best of our ability, and may the best ideas win. Those with better ideas will tend to support freedom of speech, while those who know their ideas are fundamentally undesirable will tend to prefer limiting free speech.

          The argument that the ability of money to “buy influence” becomes less credible as the price of communication media drop. With hard drive storage around $1 per [b]giga[/b]byte (that’s 1 Billion * 8 bits, 8 thousand million for the newbies), the argument that $ undermines free speech is already ludicrous. If your ideas aren’t convincing people, it can only be because you haven’t been trying, or your ideas are just stupid.

          I repeat: may the [b]best[/b] ideas win.

        • #2487056

          What? Do you live on our planet ???

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to “…our best recourse is to speak louder.”

          [i]The argument that the ability of money to “buy influence” becomes less credible as the price of communication media drop. With hard drive storage around $1 per gigabyte (that’s 1 Billion * 8 bits, 8 thousand million for the newbies), the argument that $ undermines free speech is already ludicrous. If your ideas aren’t convincing people, it can only be because you haven’t been trying, or your ideas are just stupid.[/i]

          And there, in a puff of blinding logic, goes pretty much the entire global marketing, advertising and lobbying industries (not to mention of course major slabs of the media industry), to name a few.

          You genuinely have no idea how the real world works, do you?

          The chances of your plans or dreams taking off are zero.

          Stop voting, you’re actually wasting someone else’s tax money.

        • #2487035

          I said the tools exist.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “…our best recourse is to speak louder.”

          I didn’t say many people are availing themselves of these tools effectively. Noted, a lot of advertising is presented by extremely wealthy corporations & individuals. So what? Who’s buying from them? “The People”.

        • #2487359

          And you’re right – some questions for detail

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to “…our best recourse is to speak louder.”

          .. the tools do exist, access is (practically) free. You are right, and a smart or enthusiastic or dedicated person can acheive wonders that even 20 years ago were unheard of.

          I need to ask about two points though, because they seem more important to you than simply throw-away lines:

          [i]Those with better ideas will tend to support freedom of speech[/i].

          With extraordinarily few exceptions, few “thinkers” in the world would ever question that. You “righties” and we “lefties” scream for it, albeit/agreed for sometimes opposing objectives.

          Would ‘freedom of speach’, in itself, enable anyone to decide if an idea was good or not?

          Personally I think not.

          [i]”may the best ideas win”[/i]. Is that a somewhat innocent take on the overall communications / ‘getting them to vote for me’ proposition?

          If that is all it took, every single politician, by definition, would never lose! Because I have never heard a politician commence their discourse with “I have an idea but it might not be the best you’ve heard ….”

          If that is all it took, you and I would also be extremely satisfied that the fairtax approach would win the day.

          The “idea” is, in and of itself, quite often the least of it all.

          ….

          If they are throw-away lines fair enough.

          edit spealing

        • #2489755

          No “throwaway lines” Mr. Please.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “…our best recourse is to speak louder.”

          [i]Would ‘freedom of speach’, in itself, enable anyone to decide if an idea was good or not?

          Personally I think not.[/i]

          No, the person would also need to think.

          [i]”may the best ideas win”. Is that a somewhat innocent take on the overall communications / ‘getting them to vote for me’ proposition?

          If that is all it took, every single politician, by definition, would never lose! Because I have never heard a politician commence their discourse with “I have an idea but it might not be the best you’ve heard ….”

          If that is all it took, you and I would also be extremely satisfied that the fairtax approach would win the day.

          The “idea” is, in and of itself, quite often the least of it all.[/i]

          They all present their proposals as the best, packaged amongst carefully-selected words, picked for their potential to [i]counter[/i] rational examination. Too many lofty adjectives, high-mided idealism, etc. Listen, no politician will ever usher in anybody’s “utopia” except a brutal dictator, who will introduce utopia according to the minds of psychopaths. But, promising a Christian utopia works for a lot of Republicans and promising an atheist welfare state with voting rights works for a lot of Democrats. Neither can ever deliver because of the existence of the other. If they were to rationally, maturely concede the right of the other to exist, both would have to stop promising their utopia, and present ideas that truly are possible.

        • #2487522

          Speaking louder most often indicates an uninterested audience.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Campaign finance — What’s the best worst choice?

          Let’s speak more eloquently. Our opponents pretend not to respond to it, but after a short time they become embarrassed by their own stupidity & ignorance, and shut themselves up.

        • #2487518

          “Speaking Louder” was a metaphore (EOM)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Speaking louder most often indicates an uninterested audience.

          .

        • #2488246

          Campaign contributions

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I did not say good government….

          [i]They cannot borrow money in any way shape or form or get donations in any way shape or form.[/i]

          This would be in violation of the 1st (freedom of speech) and 14th (equal protection) amendments. It is penalizing someone because they are successful.

          Now, if you wanted to limit the right to contribute to individual citizens, I’d go for that.

        • #2488171

          Not being American…

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to Campaign contributions

          I am not all that familiar with the 14th amendment.

          How do you figure that it would violate the first though? I would argue that speech and contribution are two very distinct thing. If you wish to contribute to a lobby to promote an idea, no problem there, you simply cannot do it to a politician or a party. I don’t see the relation with freedom of speech and contributing to a political party or candidate.

          Now if you were not allowed to contribute to a lobby, then i agree with you. But i was talking about a political candidate’s campaign.

        • #2488162

          Is advertising considered speech?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Not being American…

          Of course it is. What pays for it?

        • #2488154

          Well, i’m not sure it applies here

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          Nothing in what i suggested would prevent them from advertising in any way shape or form. They just cannot borrow or receive donations for it. They have to restrict their advertisement budget to what the the party (or candidate) has to spend, which comes from the common fund.

          I just realized that nothing would prevent an individual, company or organization to advertise for or against a candidate. You cannot restrict anyone from advertising for or against someone because THAT would be infringing on the first amendment.

        • #2488134

          cannot borrow or receive donations

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          So the candidate with more personal wealth can buy more advertising?

        • #2488131

          Personal wealth is not an issue…

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          …for the candidate cannot use his own money for it’s not part of the common fund.

        • #2488123

          “Not being American”…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          Oh, you mean the fund you would [b]force[/b] everyone to contribute to?

          As I stated elsewhere, that violates the first amendment. Freedom of speech has also been interpreted to mean freedom to choose whether or not you will speak. And forcing me to contribute money that will be used for advertising to support a candidate I [b]don’t[/b] want is forcing me to speak.

          “Not being American”… is becoming painfully obvious, but don’t feel too bad… Most of the people who live here don’t know what it means either.

        • #2488104

          Well Tony (is that your actual first name?).

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          I’m feeling a little annoyance in your post. If that’s the case, I’m sorry you feel that way.

          Yes, i am not an American. I do not have the same views on liberty and freedom as you seem to have. As far as I’m concern, that’s quite alright. Our differences are what makes us unique and interesting.

          I was not forcing anyone to pay the fund, i was merely making a suggestion that i see to be fair to everyone. I see it as a contribution to the democratic process more than a contribution to one party or another. But i understand that you would not want your money to go towards something you don’t support.

          I don’t recall who said this, but i remember a speech where someone was taking a stand on the first amendment saying that he who truly supports the first amendment will protect the right of anyone to say what ever he or she believes, even if it goes against everything you believe in, and he will die to protect it, because the ability to say it is more important than anything.

          That’s how i see the fund. It is not to support the one party over another, one idea over another. It is a way for all to who have a say to have a chance to say it. Not to limit the words to those who can afford it. And if that means giving a voice to those who differ from my views, so be it, for i see the availability more important then the content.

          Have a nice week end everyone.

          BTW, Max, thanks for this thread, it was fun to read.

        • #2488087

          Not annoyed.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          I am not annoyed. Resigned perhaps, but not annoyed. And yes. Tony it is.

          [i]I was not forcing anyone to pay the fund,[/i]

          I don’t know how else to take:

          “I would prefer that everyone over 18 needs to give the government 100$ every year and every 4 years, the total is split between all parties and they can only spend that specific amount of money for their campaign.”

          except as force.

          [i] i was merely making a suggestion that i see to be fair to everyone.[/i]

          This country was founded largely upon the rights of the individual. The government should not be obligated to make everyone’s life ‘fair’ at the expense of any individual’s rights. That reeks of collectivism, which is something I personally abhor.

        • #2488698

          zen37: I believe that was Jean-Jacques Rousseau

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          approximately: Although I disagree with everything you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

        • #2488694

          zen37: how campaign finance laws violate free speech

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          Our laws also guarantee that we may not be deprived of our property (or our life, or liberty) [i]”without due process of law”[/i]. Wealth is property, earned with the effort of an individual, exerted with the time that belongs to that individual. The guarantee of liberty allows me to spend my time as I prefer, in the pursuit of profit if I prefer that. To take my property [i]without due process[/i] is to take that part of my life I spent earning that property; tantamount to murder, and exactly equivalent to deprivation of the benefit [b]I have earned[/b] by choosing to exert my effort as I have chosen, in the pursuit of profit. To deprive me of the right to use my earned property as I wish is likewise theft.

        • #2489789

          the quote is …

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Is advertising considered speech?

          normally attributed to Voltaire, although in checking up a few sites there seems to be some doubt that it was actually ever said at all.

          http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/voltaire.html

          In checking up I did find a quote that has infinite applicability:

          [b]An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination./[b]

        • #2488157

          Speech

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Not being American…

          has been interpreted to mean almost any form of expression (expression supporting political candidates included!).

          Political campaigns are merely advertising. If I want to buy an ad advertising the candidate I support, I should not be prevented from doing so merely because someone else cannot afford to, nor should I be forced to contribute any of my ad money advertise a candidate who I do not support.

        • #2488152

          Candidates and parties only

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to Speech

          The restriction would apply to political parties and their candidates only. Not to private individuals, companies or private organizations.

          My only objective is to prevent a direct correlation of the political obligations towards his or her contributor. Now adds from private individuals, companies or private organizations cannot be at the request of the parties or politicians themselves.

          Would that work? I don’t know, but I’d be willing to try.

        • #2488137

          politicians themselves

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Speech

          So you want to squelch [b]their[/b] right to free speech?

        • #2488130

          Not an issue…

          by zen37 ·

          In reply to Speech

          .., to me anyways, because we are not restricting WHAT the candidate can express but HOW MUCH he can spend on saying it.

          It’s strictly a financial issue. The candidate can still say what ever he or she wants.

          Freedom of speech is not about the medium, it’s about the content.

          Edit: Scratch the last phrase, I’ve come to realize that it’s the other way around. The medium is more important than the content. But i still believe we should find a way to prevent lobbyist from influencing politicians with money.

        • #2488113

          Sorry

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Speech

          You are wrong. It is about our right to deliver our message to any/all who will listen.

        • #2488691

          zen37 & TonytheTiger: What if we require publishing contributions?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Speech

          Let every candidate spend as much as they want, and accept as much money from whomever will give it to them, [b]provided that they must publish their financial records according to stricter laws than Sarbanes-Oxley.[/b] Would this satisfy both of you?

        • #2488684

          I don’t know abs

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Speech

          Doesn’t the freedom of speech include anonymous speech?

        • #2488678

          Tony: not anonymously, because others are free to reveal your identity.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Speech

          I should have been more exact: the Constitution already mandates, in the Fourth Amendment, free [b]access[/b] to the identities of all “speakers” in politics.

        • #2488616

          I guess that rules out

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Speech

          the tin cup outside the campaign hearquarters 🙂

        • #2488613

          Funny, Tony. Your real answer?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Speech

          If “the people”, in our role as “the market” for journalism, act in such a way as to display an economic [i]demand[/i] for a [i]supply[/i] of this information, then the existing Freedom of Information Act, and the Fourth Amendment, already provide the framework for what I proposed above. No new laws need be passed. Do you agree?

        • #2488596

          Yes,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Speech

          I agree that, if they know the name of the contributor, they should reveal it upon request.

        • #2488588

          Thanks, Tony. Now, zen37, since it is already required by law…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Speech

          to make information available to journalists, and journalists will pursue and publish information according to the interests of the public as we express those interests with our purchases, do you have any objections allowing freedom in campaign finance?

      • #2486624

        Anarchy won’t catch on until they get a LOT more organized!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to The idea of government is good

        They have never once run an effective national campaign!

        Sometimes, I cannot believe how funny I am.

    • #2488681

      What is more?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      I don’t quite get what you mean, Max. When you say people want mroe government, are you referring to people who blame the government for not taking action; thus they don’t have to accept personal responsibility for things like tripping on a sidewalk that didn’t have a beware sign, feeling descriminated against for allowing recognition of foreign language days in school etc.?

      Is that the type of government interaction you are referring to people wanting more of?

      Or are you referring to people who want the government to up funding for welfare, medical and other commonly known “social services” ?

      I see and agree with the point that peop[le need to take more responsibility and not expect teh overnment to protect them from life but you know I support the government using tax dollars for social programs.

      Just not sure exactly what you meant, prehaps as a result of missing a leading topic?

      I think that just because I [i]’expect'[/i] more from my government, this doesn’t mean I want MORE govrnment. I think they can do better with what they have, not neccessarily have more control over my income.

      I object to the way they govern, I object to the way they spend MY tax money in some ways, but I don’t want them to gain even more control. Is that what you mean?

      Sorry, I was late to notice this one and don’t want to go through all of it just to catch the focus of many opposing opinions.

    • #2489820

      Are you so naive to believe the great unwashed can think logically?? :0

      by sleepin’dawg ·

      In reply to Why is it?

      Most people are incapable of understanding the nuances of cause and effect but expect the government to provide a safety net for every aspect of their sad little lives. However, they will bitch like hell if taxes are increased when the same service is extended pandemically to all, not just themselves. Individual selfishness is the operative here not intelligence; that and the failure or lack of capability to be self reliant.

      [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

Viewing 9 reply threads