Are liberals dumb?

[Wakeforest22890]

I think most reasonable people are in favor of lowering government expenditures while raising taxes in a well-calculated manner. We just cannot get past the vapid rhetoric surrounding anything that has to do with the word "taxes" to get anything done about it.

 

[ChrisL68]

I think most reasonable people are in favor of lowering government expenditures while raising taxes in a well-calculated manner. We just cannot get past the vapid rhetoric surrounding anything that has to do with the word "taxes" to get anything done about it.

I agree with you, but jhmd (and I don't often say this) is right that there is just as much rhetoric decrying the end of the world every time cutting government expenditures is discussed. Lots of fear mongering on both sides.

 

[Deacon923]

No offense, but that is easy to say when you're not in that position. If/when you are in that position you realize that (a) you are busting your ass and roughly half (city, county, state, federal - especially if you own a business) of the time you are away from your family you are working for the government and not yourself; and (b) you recognize what positive effect you could have with that amount of money actually using it for productive charitable purposes as opposed to the government pissing it down a hole.

Western/Christian society has put a moral imperative on the rich to support the poor for 2,000 years. During exactly none of that time did the rich voluntarily support the poor in a way sufficient to keep them from living in starvation and squalor. Instead, the rich extracted as much labor and goods from the poor as they could and threw them enough crumbs to keep them from revolting.

Find me a time and place where the poorest citizens had a quality of life from charity remotely comparable to that which they enjoy in a modern Western welfare state. The condition of the poorest didn't change much between 1000 AD and 1900 AD. In fact, the life of a English peasant farmer in 1000 AD may have been better than the life of a mill worker in Guilford County circa 1890, if you subtract the Viking invasions. I'd take the Viking invasions over being a poor black man in the American south circa 1859. You may think that's all a coincidence, that the poor in Western societies would be just as well off in an entitlement free, voluntary giving-based libertarian utopia, but I say that's complete bunk and I think history is on my side.

 

[jhmd2000]

I agree with you, but jhmd (and I don't often say this) is right that there is just as much rhetoric decrying the end of the world every time cutting government expenditures is discussed. Lots of fear mongering on both sides.

Which, in a not inconsequential addition to manifest need, is precisely the reason we should do both. There's a grand bargain to be struck hiding in plain sight....we just need people to meet in the middle. Neither side would be nearly as hurt as each pretends.

 

[Deacon923]

I agree with you, but jhmd (and I don't often say this) is right that there is just as much rhetoric decrying the end of the world every time cutting government expenditures is discussed. Lots of fear mongering on both sides.

Oh sure. From the rhetoric six months ago you would have thought that the sequester was the Mayan apocalypse. Turns out it basically wasn't a big deal at all (although the cuts get deeper next year and people might be able to notice a little more).

 

[Deacon923]

I don't have a problem with levying sufficient taxes to pay our debts (indeed, I vehemently oppose allowing our expenses to outpace receipts, and want pressures brought from both sides to reduce that spread to less than zero), but need for revenue needs to be the driver. I do not believe a person should be taxed b/c they have too much income and it needs to be redistributed, since that is none of the government's business (and if you think taxing income is a problem, let's talk about taxing wealth and see how popular that is). She or he has as much income as she has, and if you're (royal second person, you understand) trying to "take" it for the simple sake of denying it to other people, then that's confiscation and would be illegal in any other context. The first question isn't "how much do the taxpayers have?", it should be "how much money does the government need?". We never seem to get around to asking that question in a thoughtful way (b/c as RJ Karl will tell you, there's no room to cut any programs except the ones he disagrees with. Otherwise, you hate children and first responders. Or something.)

If I was satisfied that we had done a good job pruning our expenses, then I'd be in favor of raising taxes. In truth, we need to do both and the sooner the better, but the first stop has to be cutting waste and reforming so-called entitlements. It's INSANE to take money from working families to give it to wealthy retirees or to retirees who didn't save. Screw it, ACA is the law of the land. Let's crank up the death panels and start thinning the herd.

The question of "how much money does the government need" is directly tied to the question of "how much money should the government hand out to poor, old, and disabled people". Unless you think the answer to the second question is "zero", you can't get away from the fact that government is going to be taking money from wealthy people and giving it, in some form or fashion, to poor people.

 

[jhmd2000]

Oh sure. From the rhetoric six months ago you would have thought that the sequester was the Mayan apocalypse. Turns out it basically wasn't a big deal at all (although the cuts get deeper next year and people might be able to notice a little more).

Sequestration, the Fiscal Cliff, Government Shutdown (#22), Default, the Wolf at the Gate,...which'evs.

 

[ChrisL68]

After alot of fear mongering, the cuts have started to find their way towards the inefficiencies in the budget. Just throwing our hands up and saying it can't be located isn't an acceptable answer.

 

[jhmd2000]

The question of "how much money does the government need" is directly tied to the question of "how much money should the government hand out to poor, old, and disabled people". Unless you think the answer to the second question is "zero", you can't get away from the fact that government is going to be taking money from wealthy people and giving it, in some form or fashion, to poor people.

I'm aware. My hope is that we do so in a way that is designed to help them build better lives than give them just enough to stay poor. We're not doing a very good job of that, as people continue to drop out of school, have children they can't feed or educate and start looking to others to solve these avoidable problems. I don't have a problem with helping people, I just want to actually do it.

It's much more expensive to raise a family full of people dependent on the government (what we are doing) than it is to recruit and retain a quality educator who can give that person a path to a better life and then hold them to the consequences of either choosing it (with rewards) or not, by not subsidizing bad choices (which we are not doing). My problem with our "help" is it comes without expectations. Newsflash: those expectations aren't for your and my benefit, we'll be fine. You and I won't even feel the sting of supporting two or three families full of children over our lifetimes who were born without a father. To me, it's both cowardly and inhumane to let people continue to make dangerously bad choices for themselves, but be afraid to saying anything about it for fear of coming off as judging others. To me, that's some morally expensive vanity. I'll take being paternalistic with a plan over benign (read: not benign) neglect.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Western/Christian society has put a moral imperative on the rich to support the poor for 2,000 years. During exactly none of that time did the rich voluntarily support the poor in a way sufficient to keep them from living in starvation and squalor. Instead, the rich extracted as much labor and goods from the poor as they could and threw them enough crumbs to keep them from revolting.

Find me a time and place where the poorest citizens had a quality of life from charity remotely comparable to that which they enjoy in a modern Western welfare state. The condition of the poorest didn't change much between 1000 AD and 1900 AD. In fact, the life of a English peasant farmer in 1000 AD may have been better than the life of a mill worker in Guilford County circa 1890, if you subtract the Viking invasions. I'd take the Viking invasions over being a poor black man in the American south circa 1859. You may think that's all a coincidence, that the poor in Western societies would be just as well off in an entitlement free, voluntary giving-based libertarian utopia, but I say that's complete bunk and I think history is on my side.

Hilarious. You're doing the exact same Mayan apocalypse mongering that you acuse others of falling victim to. Since when does lowering taxes (or really, simply not raising them) mean DOING AWAY WITH ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS!!!111!!! There is plenty of waste both within and outside of the direct redistribution programs. It is possible to be critical of the current taxation/spending levels while still supporting the goal and existence of the safety net programs and seeing what are often the more direct benefits of charities.

 

[PhDeac]

Hilarious. You're doing the exact same Mayan apocalypse mongering that you acuse others of falling victim to. Since when does lowering taxes (or really, simply not raising them) mean DOING AWAY WITH ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS!!!111!!! There is plenty of waste both within and outside of the direct redistribution programs. It is possible to be critical of the current taxation/spending levels while still supporting the goal and existence of the safety net programs and seeing what are often the more direct benefits of charities.

Nice straw man, 2&2. Keep up with the conversation.

 

[siff]

Western/Christian society has put a moral imperative on the rich to support the poor for 2,000 years. During exactly none of that time did the rich voluntarily support the poor in a way sufficient to keep them from living in starvation and squalor. Instead, the rich extracted as much labor and goods from the poor as they could and threw them enough crumbs to keep them from revolting.

Find me a time and place where the poorest citizens had a quality of life from charity remotely comparable to that which they enjoy in a modern Western welfare state. The condition of the poorest didn't change much between 1000 AD and 1900 AD. In fact, the life of a English peasant farmer in 1000 AD may have been better than the life of a mill worker in Guilford County circa 1890, if you subtract the Viking invasions. I'd take the Viking invasions over being a poor black man in the American south circa 1859. You may think that's all a coincidence, that the poor in Western societies would be just as well off in an entitlement free, voluntary giving-based libertarian utopia, but I say that's complete bunk and I think history is on my side.

Lol

 

[Deacon923]

Hilarious. You're doing the exact same Mayan apocalypse mongering that you acuse others of falling victim to. Since when does lowering taxes (or really, simply not raising them) mean DOING AWAY WITH ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS!!!111!!! There is plenty of waste both within and outside of the direct redistribution programs. It is possible to be critical of the current taxation/spending levels while still supporting the goal and existence of the safety net programs and seeing what are often the more direct benefits of charities.

Not at all. I am simply pointing out the fact that charitable giving is not, and has never been, a meaningful substitute for government redistribution when it comes to helping the poor. Charity is a great thing, but history (and modern nonprofit tax returns) shows that the lions share of the "charity" goes to pump up the status of the giver or support the lifestyle of the people running the charitable institution.

Obviously many charities do great work but I don't buy the argument that (a) charities on the whole are any less wasteful than government or (b) that rich people would be so grateful for their tax cut that they'd give a meaningful portion of it to the mythical hyper efficient charities.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[PhDeac]

B is particularly unlikely because rich people have the motivation of giving to charity because they receive a tax cut for their giving.

 

[sailordeac]

We are probably on the same board in terms of plans. Across the board 5% cuts, massive cuts to defense, getting rid of the inefficiency of our health care system which would help reduce entitlement spending. And raise taxes on the top 1%.

The the defense and 5% cuts are OK by me but they will inevitably lead to some unemployment. Raising taxes on the top 1% is unavoidable and inevitable. It's also currently probably a good idea. "Getting rid of the inefficiency of our health care system" is very desirable but hugely problematic. Much of the inefficiency has been created during the years of increasing federal involvement, the last 50 years. Now, we are on the berge of another boost in federal involvement and spending. The notion of simultaneously increasing federal involvement in medical spending and decreasing the inefficiency of the health care system defies the experience of the last fifty years. Skepticism on this is both very sensible, indeed common sensical, and well-founded.

 

[PhDeac]

I don't like waste and bloated government or private sector for the sake of jobs. Efficiency will lead to job loss. That's just a fact. Just don't demonize the president because the private sector and public sector are trimming fat. We do need some type of infrastructure for the unemployed to prevent the waste of human capital.

 

[sailordeac]

I don't like waste and bloated government or private sector for the sake of jobs. Efficiency will lead to job loss. That's just a fact. Just don't demonize the president because the private sector and public sector are trimming fat. We do need some type of infrastructure for the unemployed to prevent the waste of human capital.

I wasn't criticizing the President, merely pointing out fact. If your point is that defense spending is not a particularly efficient way to spend money, I agree. But the immediate impact of unemployment from any serious defense cuts remains, and consequently has to be a part of the calculation, no matter what your political ideology or view. As I noted in my post the most problemeatic area of your suggestion is trying to increase health care efficiency while at the same time increasing federal spending and involvement in health care. The two just have never gone together.

 

[PhDeac]

Oh I wasn't say you were criticizing Obama. Just saying that's what happens when unemployment goes up due to trimming the fat.

I agree that we have a huge task ahead of us in terms of health care. Doing the right thing would put a lot of pencil pushers on the streets.

 

[dmcheatw]

Lol

why do you laugh at this? his history is dead on, except that the imperative to give to the lower classes and fund great public works actually predates xtianity...which strengthens his point.

Taxing high levels of income I am fine with. When we start talking about the need to tax net worth, I have a big problem with that.

Well, I think I see the distrinction. I said it could be done over several presidential terms. Out of curiosity, how did your parents accumulate their wealth if not through high income?

Can you give an example of a tough decision your parents have had to make? Here is what I understand to be tough decisions, better than i read in any textbook:



that's a true story as well as a symbol for the plight of impoverished people across time and place, and that's why i said earlier that the word "tough" is really, really subjective. Also, if you don't believe that you could look at the radio documentary of Harper High in CHI. these are the decisions impoverished people make on the daily. i'm assuming that the tough decisions your parents have made over the years (not daily: 'do i send my kid to get an education when there is a real chance he will be murdered' type decisions ?) are nothing like that.

the decisions your parents make really are tough, but it's all very relative is my point. and if you haven't lived in west inglewood, or in brenda's house you might not really appreciate how hard that life can be. i don't know how hard it would be either. but i do believe that if you have to trade in a car or even a house, change your retirement plans, and/or get less inheritance in an effort to help society (in any manner) that it's a noble, worthy, and just cause.

anyway sorry to preach but that's just my world view. but again i do think it should be done gradually, so people get fucked over with less intensity. but again you could always look at it as living up to the philanthropic tradition of humanity which is in itself a vote of confidence in society and an acknowledgement that we're all in it together...as well as a way to keep people from open revolt as 923 mentioned.

 

[dmcheatw]

I wasn't criticizing the President, merely pointing out fact. If your point is that defense spending is not a particularly efficient way to spend money, I agree. But the immediate impact of unemployment from any serious defense cuts remains, and consequently has to be a part of the calculation, no matter what your political ideology or view. As I noted in my post the most problemeatic area of your suggestion is trying to increase health care efficiency while at the same time increasing federal spending and involvement in health care. The two just have never gone together.

what if those cuts are done over 20 years? greatly mitigates the unemployment issues you mention. the key to all economic changes (imo) is gradual, and slow, and, ideally, wait for feedback before continuing on. nothing can be reformed without causing some discomfort for some people.