Is this what a true Conservative would say?
"Don't tell me how to spend my money, but let me tell you how to live properly and righteously..."
Is this what a true Liberal would say?
"Don't tell me how to live my life, but let me tell you how to spend your money properly and righteously..."
I was reminded of this again as I received my Voter's Guide from the Religious Right.
MN Voter
MN Voter's Guide - Metro
Since I see Government as a Continually Growing Inefficient Wealth Destroying Monster that will surely overwhelm our Capitalistic Wealth Generating Machine if we do not reign it in, I will most likely vote straight Republican as usual. I really want to ensure that our citizens and country stay globally competitive and continue to maintain an extremely high standard of living. This is going to be really hard to do when fewer and fewer in the private sector, have to drag along the more and more anchors from the Governmental sector. (ie regulations, bureaucrats, taxes, public employee unions, free loading citizens, lawyers, etc)
Now this is going to be frustrating for me as usual, because it means that I need to vote for a bunch of yahoo's that want small government on one hand. Yet they want Government to intrude, control and limit all kinds of personal freedoms. (ie no gay marriage, no gay partnerships, no medicinal pot, no gays in military, no paid surrogacy, etc) The contradiction still amazes me.
Then their is the other contradiction... We don't want to help pay so that poor girls can get parental planning, information and abortions like the middle class and rich girls, however we will happily support using tax dollars to blow up and kill hundreds of thousands of people in Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan... I assume this is the same logic that was used during the Crusades... And look how well those turned out.
Ironically I support the work in Iraq and Afganistan, something had to be done with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. (ie they went beyond the normal crazies...) However, if Conservatives get to use a large amount of tax dollars to "improve the world". The Liberal should get to use a small amount of tax dollars to help "improve the world". (abortion and crime reduction)
Now it is likely I have insulted both sides of center, so please reply with your thoughts. And whether you are Liberal or Conservative....
Get Out and VOTE !!!
A lot of people have died to secure this right and responsibility for us !!! Make the most of it !!!
18 comments:
G2A,
It is YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT to "insulted both sides of center". We still live in a FREE country.
I agree with you "Get Out and VOTE !!! A lot of people have died to secure this right and responsibility for us !!! Make the most of it !!!"
Let us see what and how the American voters say on Tuesday?
You're just not making distinctions between the "factions" within GOP coalition. We have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, foreign policy conservatives and libertarians, as well as a few other flavors, like Paulites. And of course many of us cross over two or more. The problem we always have is that we want to fight among ourselves more than we want to object to the truly freedom-destroying [modern] liberal agenda.
To me, the distinction has always been in freedom, or the use of force. We should all agree we do not want government to take our money, by force, and squander it on things that we think are foolish (and unConstitutional power grabs). We should also agree that we DO want government to use force to prevent others from using force against us. Government should prevent us from being robbed, or murdered (even if we're unborn) or subjugated militarily.
Conversely, government shouldn't have a say in "whom we love" or even whom we marry, but they absolutely have no business conferring government benefits (taken by force from the rest of us) on people who the rest of us don't believe qualify for them. And that precept has much broader application than gay marriage.
So, to answer your question: Yes a true conservative would say that, but in different terms. A true modern liberal would not say that. He would say "I am smarter and better than you. I know better how to spend your money and live your life than you do. Pay up and shut up."
J. Ewing
That is definitely the bad side of having a two party system. (ie polarizing) I have to hope that some of the Republican candidates are just speaking "far right" in order to secure the "Religious Right" vote.
As for the perspective that Liberals are more arrogant than Conservatives. (ie "I am smarter and better than you...") I am guessing that many readers may label Conservatives in much the same way... Especially after that comment... (hahahaha)
In fact, rarely do I hear Conservatives and Liberals speaking of the grayness of the world and the issues. Or of any uncertainty... Typically they just spout the party theology. Seemingly, knowing that they are absolutely correct...
You know, I don't see any "gray" on the ballot. That's the beauty of the two party system. At any given point in time, one party, or at least the candidate of one party, is closer to the right answer than is the other. Then, when it comes time for our elected officials to vote, they vote yea or nay, not "maybe, under certain circumstances, for certain people."
Moderation and compromise are almost NEVER the "right answer." If one side or party wants to overspend State revenues by $6billion and the other side wants government to live within its means, where is the right answer, and where is the proper place to compromise?
One can bemoan the fact that we have only two [realistically] choices on the ballot, or we can embrace the simplicity of that decision-making, taking the country and State incrementally in the right direction. It is even simpler if, like me, you have found over the years that any Republican is better than a Democrat. I keep doing my due diligence, but lately it hasn't taken much effort to reaffirm that maxim.
J. Ewing
So in your black and white world there are only 2 choices?
1. Hold proper* amount of revenues/taxes fixed, and cut/hold programs and expenditures until the budget is balanced.
2. Adequately* fund programs and expenditures, and increase revenues/taxes until the budget is balanced.
* whatever proper and adequately mean??? or are they arbitrary???
That perception of reality definitely simplifies things... Its probably a good thing the two extremes keep playing tug of war. Thereby allowing the pendulum to swing only so far from center...
You are correct, that the pendulum never swings too far, and it is precisely because of the two-party system that it works that way. To get 50% of the vote, a party/candidate must appear, at least, to embrace 50% (+1) of the opinions of the electorate. Even if the most reasonable solution to the "problems" lie at one pole of the political spectrum, there will always be a sizable number who think it is more important to compromise, or be moderate, than to actually get the problem solved properly. I repeat: Compromise and moderation are almost NEVER the right answer to any given political problem. It may be the only possible answer, but it isn't the right one.
I still don't understand the fascination, either. When one party wants to spend way more than you have, way more than you've ever spent, and way more than they can reasonably extract from the economy at this point while the other party thinks we should live within our means, where is the compromise that keeps our economy-- personal and statewide-- from collapsing, and for what purpose? Can government really do all the "good things" they supposedly do if they crush the people paying for it? Seems counterproductive to me.
J. Ewing
J,
Maybe the following thoughts I have been pondering lately fit in here somewhere. I sense that you believe the citizens and economy can not afford the additional taxes. Yet, continually I watch people building bigger and bigger homes that cost more and more. (ie compared to pre-80's homes) Many with well beyond the space a typical family needs to live and entertain...
Also, the number of $30,000+ cars that are sold is simply staggering.
Doesn't this mean that the top 20% have plenty of discretionary income to resolve our budgetary woes? Census Household Income
And those even smaller percentages at the top must have lots of disposable income?
Now I am not saying we should raise taxes... Since I think there is plenty of waste that should be trimmed first. However, I am not going so far as to say we can not afford to raise taxes on the very well to do. Census Household Incomes
I heard about the following on some radio show and found it fascinating. It must feel good once you clear that top bracket.
Taxing LeBron James dentist"
"Many with well beyond the space a typical family needs to live and entertain..."
I think you've put your finger squarely on the problem. You seem to believe that YOU (well, not you personally, but some faceless bureaucratic political-appointee troll) gets to decide how much each and every one of us "needs." That is NOT and should never be the job of government, and we would be barking fools to ever allow them such power yet here we are on the verge of accepting it as revealed wisdom.
The underlying premise is that all money belongs to the government, and that you should be thankful for whatever crumbs they allow you to keep. Looked at another way, government has first claim on every dollar and can never do with less, but YOU will just have to make do with less if things get a little tough and government "needs" more. Our vanquished state representative even said it plainly, "the State of Minnesota has needs" that apparently justify all spending and all taxes, regardless of the wisdom or desirability of such. I'll say this: the State has NO needs, and cannot. The State should confine itself to providing the services that The People want and are willing to pay for, and nothing more. If most of us choose the bigger house rather than an increase in per diem for legislators, so be it, and who are YOU to tell us we shouldn't?
J. Ewing
So in summary, "I" can afford it but "I" do not see the value for "ME". Besides it is "MY" money and I do not OWE any of it to the "USA". Even though I would not have the money if I was born in most other countries... So "I" should get to keep almost all of my earnings, though the "USA" and all those low income citizens enabled me to earn them... Did I get that right?
Sorry, I am a fan of the progressive tax system. The more rewards the "USA" enables you to gather. The higher percentage you need to pay. Think of it as splitting tips between the restaurant staff. The waitress would have nothing if it was not for the cook, dish washers, etc. Therefore the waitress with the biggest tips spreads the wealth.
Now if the well to do did this voluntarily, that would be another story. Unfortunately it seems they are becoming more focused on themselves instead. (ie big homes and expensive cars) The USA Society's priorities seem to be getting more and more skewed toward "stuff". (ala lifestyles of the rich and famous)
By the way, remember my friend's definition of rich. "He is rich... Because he makes more than me." And the corrolary "Once I am rich like him, then I'll start giving back to the USA and her people. Til then I'll keep ignoring that responsibility."
Contrary to the vision of the self-anointed, Americans got rich because of their freedoms, not because of high taxes. And it IS our money. If government believes it is a good idea to build a road or bridge or light rail system, they should either seek private enterprise and capital to do so, allowing them to profit from it, or they should at minimum be asking The People if they believe such an expenditure of THEIR money is a reasonable thing to do.
That's the problem with government today, it suffers from "Opium" addiction, spelled OPM and short for "other people's money." It's why I think legislators should be paid strictly with a share of the budget surplus each year, minus the amount of any tax increases. I think you would see a rapid shift of priorities in the budget.
Two more things: I'll agree with a "progressive" tax system so long as everybody pays the same rate, meaning the one who earns more pays more. I'll even be so generous as to exempt the first $X thousand dollars of earnings, and start the flat rate above that-- still a perfectly progressive system. AND... you still seem to have an animus towards the rich which I don't understand. This country advances because of rich people. Every advance in standard of living starts out-- take color TV for example-- as something that somebody got rich inventing. Other rich people buy them, creating jobs for people of modest means, and as more and more are built and sold the cost comes down to where now everybody has one, including the people that make them. A few of those people will have a bright idea, and around we go again. If you didn't have rich people spending money, we wouldn't have most of the things they spend money on, and the rest of us wouldn't have jobs producing those things. You can't improve the poor by eliminating the rich, all you get is the equal sharing of misery.
J. Ewing
NPR Marketplace 22Oct10
Some of my comments were generated after listening to the above linked show. Rarely do I listen to NPR, however I was travelling and it was a fascinating listen.
Did you know that one of the key reasons that black people are poorer than white people is because they for the most part did not get the relatively "FREE" land grants from the "USA". (don't even mention the American Indians...) And in many places they were not even allowed to own property 2 generations ago. Therefore they were unable to experience most of the asset growth that many of our White family's wealth is based on... Just a fascinating thing I had never even considered.
Back to my animus... I am part of a pretty conservative family that has accumulated a significant amount of wealth. In part because of the land grant benefits that my ancestor's took advantage of, and in part due to a lot of hard work, saving and investing. So I am pretty comfortable with wealth and am in no hurry to give it all away.
What I am probably frustrated with are people that believe "THEY" alone are responsible for "THEIR" wealth, which of course is humorous at best and sad at worst.
So the Color TV inventor creates this device that generates huge revenues. The only reason the Inventor has the right to the intellectual property and profits is because the "USA" allows him to. Without Patent law and its enforcement, the Inventor would have nothing... So what cut should the "USA" get of the revenues?
I wonder what Bill Gates would be worth if he had created Microsoft in China, or some other less regulated country? Also, how would he have done it without access to the "USA" provided University computer systems that he started working on as a teenager? How about if he was struggling to find clean water and food,like those in Haiti? Would he have invented the great stuff we all use daily? What should be the USA's cut for enabling him?
By the way, I agree there needs to be enough incentive to keep the inventor's inventing. Would Bill Gates have done it for half the wealth he has accumulated? My guess is probably...
So bringing this back to real people, do you think you would be making $100K, $200K, $300K, $1mil, $10mil, etc in most other countries? If not, how much do you owe to the USA?
Interesting topic...
"The only reason the Inventor has the right to the intellectual property and profits is because the "USA" allows him to. Without Patent law and its enforcement, ..."
Government should be in the business of protecting us from one another and enforcing the rule of law. It is their primary function and needs to claim enough resources to fulfill that responsibility. In most government budgets today, law enforcement and courts are barely more then a footnote. You cannot use the same argument "success because of government" to argue for redistribution of wealth, because that process actually destroys not only wealth but the desire AND ability to create it.
J. Ewing
J,
You will need to expand...
Of course I can make the argument, another benefit that the USA government grants me. It protects my right to freedom of speech... Darn those founding fathers were pretty smart.
Of course the USA government promotes wealth creation, however it is not exactly cheap. The USA is one of the most creative places in the world because corruption is low, intellectual property rights are protected,tax rates are manageable, business finances are relatively transparent, business investments are safe from political instability, inflation is controlled, etc... Now, who should pay the most for these benefits, and how much?
The CEO/Inventor or the Janitor? How much should the difference be?
Let's think... If the Janitor makes $20K and pays 0%, or even gets back $10K... He gets to live on $20K or $30K...
If the CEO/Inventor makes $2 million and pays 50%, he gets to live on $1 million... Even if he pays 70%, he still gets to live on $600K... Definitely better than being the Janitor...
I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. The American government should fulfill its Constitutional duties to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, to create a system of laws and courts, promote commerce, and collect tariffs and taxes sufficient to fulfill that very limited set of duties. When we start talking about the tax system as something that needs to enforce "fairness" we are talking about something far, far outside the proper purview of government, unnecessarily meddlesome and doomed to failure because there is no way for a tax system to create something which cannot exist. Life isn't fair.
You are arguing for a tax system that is both fair and progressive, and that is impossible. Fair would be to have everyone pay the same dollar amount, and that would fall hardest on the poor. It would be impossible with today's level of government spending, averaging as it does $10,000 per person ($40,000 for a family of 4 and median family income is $50,000). I am willing, until this ridiculous level of government spending can be brought down, to accept a progressive tax system, in which everyone pays the same RATE. Therefore the fellow making $20,000 pays 10% or $2000, and the fellow making $200,000 pays $20,000, ten times as much. That's progressive. I also point out that the janitor is probably cleaning the office of the CEO, and wouldn't have a job at all if the government enacts confiscatory taxes on the CEO. Back when Congress was talking about enacting 90% taxes on AIG executive bonuses (and they were receiving death threats against their families) I calculated that the average AIG exec could live in seaside luxury in Belize for the next 20 years just on their bonus alone. If that tax had passed, guess how much the government would have received? And for what, fairness? Hah!
I'll even go one step further. Let us enact the simple one-rate tax, no exemptions, deductions, nothing, except for a family deduction of, say, something like the poverty level, or even 150% of poverty for your sized family. This way the tax falls on "disposable income" rather than all income, but it's perfectly progressive beyond that point. Right now the person making ten times as much not only pays ten times the amount, but at ten times the RATE. Nothing fair about that, though it is "progressive" in the vilest sense of the word.
Lastly, the government "promotes wealth creation," you said. But it does that by fulfilling its very limited Constitutional role of NOT trampling on our economic freedoms, but merely enforcing the law and otherwise staying out of the way. Huge tax and regulatory burdens are NOT conducive to wealth creation.
J. Ewing
So fairness in your opinion is that everyone pays the same amount for the same government? (ie cost of citizenship) Or at least the same rate after some base living cost "std deduction".
Just wondering, what number would you pick as the "std deduction"? (ie $10K, $30K, $60K, $80K, other) As I understand, this would be tax free money.
Another definition of fair would be that those receiving the most financial value (ie gain) from having a system in place would pay the most taxes to keep that beneficial system running. (ie cost of playing and winning the game)
Fair is definitely an interesting and subjective word...
Someone working 80 hrs/wk and barely getting by may find it truly unfair that some CEO's make huge money, work less and have questionable results/ethics. It is an interesting perception to try on sometimes.
The "std deduction" I have in mind is the same one proposed in both the FAIR tax and flat tax proposals that have floated around for years, roughly $35,000 for a family of four. I'm led to understand this is about 150% of the poverty level, though I could be wrong about the exact numbers. And it wouldn't be tax-free under the FAIR tax. Everyone would pay this national retail sales tax, and everyone would get a "prebate" of that base amount to cover it. Millionaires would get the prebate, just like everybody else. Above that, the tax is perfectly progressive. The more you spend, the more you pay. Invest it in your business, or save it for your old age, or give it to charity, and it's tax free.
The problem with defining fairness by your example (the janitor makes less than the CEO) is that it is based on a double fallacy: First, that there is such a thing as fairness in life, and second, government cannot create fairness for some by treating others unfairly. If life were fair, Mark Dayton wouldn't be allowed within 5 miles of the Governor's mansion. If life were fair, I would win the lottery every time I played. If life were fair, I could beat LeBron at basketball and collect his salary. The glory of our American freedoms is the ability to rise as high as our individual effort and ability take us. To nobody is that "fair" in the equality of outcomes sense, but it is manifestly fair in the equality of opportunity sense. The government shouldn't be hampering that opportunity on the front end and then punishing success on the back end. That's not only unfair and tyrannical, that's counterproductive.
I reject the notion that those who succeed have somehow "benefited the most" from government and should therefore pay the most. Those who succeed did so (most of the time) both in spite of government obstacles and because of our inalienable freedoms. We owe nothing for those, and we certainly shouldn't pay more to get more government interference. It all starts with the proper role of government. Get back to that, and the costs won't be a problem.
J. Ewing
Isn't your solution then a recipe for the rich to get richer and the poor start over? Generation after generation... (again and again and again and again)
Won't people who have inherited wealth that was accumulated over generations just continue to build that head start for their kids then? Whereas most poor kids will keep being reset at ~$0.
Of course, I appreciate this since I stand to inherit well because of this huge benefit. Plus the other huge benefit, I have had an excellent education, and been trained to manage assets and investments since I was a small child. (ie comes with the family thing)
So I guess you are correct,
"The glory of our American freedoms is the ability to rise as high as our individual effort and ability take us. To nobody is that "fair" in the equality of outcomes sense, but it is manifestly fair in the equality of opportunity sense."
Paris Hilton and that poor kid down the street do have similar opportunities... Kind of... I mean it will be hard for her to blow that nest egg. Whereas hopefully the poor kid can maybe get to middle class.
Maybe in a few generations the poor kid's family may have a multi-generational nest egg. Of course by this time the Hilton's will have amassed an ever bigger fortune.
I wonder if this why Aristocracies have been historically over thrown by the masses when the gap got too big. Anyone want cake?
"Won't people who have inherited wealth that was accumulated over generations just continue to build that head start for their kids then? Whereas most poor kids will keep being reset at ~$0."
You need to read a little de Tocqueville. One of the few great ideas he observed about America is that, unlike the aristocracies of Europe, great wealth does not survive very many generations. Paris Hilton is the great example. She is the first generation and inherited great wealth, but her abilities needed to keep it are practically nil. It will all be dissipated in another generation or two. Those that DO have ability will succeed, but the inheritance is only the start, they still have to rebuild it every generation, and that is to THEIR credit.
As for the "poor," public education was supposed to provide them the requisite opportunity to succeed and has failed in many places. But even at that, someone in the bottom quintile of earnings 20 years ago is more likely to have moved up than to have remained in place. And the way they obtain those opportunities is because we have given others the opportunity to get just stinking rich, creating jobs along the way.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment