- This is the power and weakness of America, we get to actively argue at both the logical and emotional level. (ie Gov Dayton and the Tea Party Protestors)
- It shows how broad brushes and stereotypes can and are applied. Which we know are not correct because everyone's beliefs, intent and methods are unique.
- It implies that the people in a "party" with a slight majority can make significant changes. The reality as we have seen during the last 2 yrs with Obama and his legislative slight majority is that they tend to in fight, and they tend to be somewhat self serving. (ie what can I get for my voters... how can I increase my visibility, power, influence, etc)
- It raises the question of who is the most greedy and self centered? Those demanding money for nothing or those fighting to keep the money they inherited or earned? In God's eyes, is there really a difference?
- Is a Conservative truly smarter and more logical than a Liberal? Or do they just have different logics and ideals?
Personally, I wonder how one of our brightest founding Fathers would have fared in our America of Modern politics. (Ben Franklin Quotes) (note: you have to read these, the man was brilliant) Do we really think things were simpler, more logical or better back then?
So what do you think? We now have Legislative and Executive gridlock at both the State and National level... Is this a good or bad thing and why? Would the founding fathers be proud or disappointed in us?
Any ideas for improving this discombobulated chaotic mess we call American Politics? Many people see it as the best system in the world... Sometimes I wonder...
Finally, have us Americans become so self interested, lazy and stupid that the script writers and TV ads have taken over our leadership? Just like the infomercials... "You really need this George Foreman grill in your kitchen.... CALL NOW !!!"
_______________________________________________
"I look forward to that, too, but I expect liberals to fight tooth and nail to insist that free markets cannot possibly produce the greatest good for the greatest number, and that only having some bureaucrat take from one of us and give to another to take care of a third is the compassionate ideal."
_______________________________________________
Am I the only one who follows the events of the day? Are all these conservatives who are so proud of canceling their subscriptions to the Star Tribune unaware that they won last November's election, and they can do what they want at the state legislature, no matter how many teeth and nails, liberals throw into the fight?If Republicans want to open up the health care market to competition, they have the power to do it. That's what it means to win elections, to be the majority party in the legislature.
_______________________________________________
The point you are missing is that liberals "fight tooth and nail" rather than engage in rational decision-making, debate and legislating. They will mount furious attacks on the personal and public morality of ANYONE who threatens the gravy train of government largess that they consider their birthright, or at least their right by virtue of their own overwhelming moral and intellectual superiority. They do not and seemingly never will acknowledge that their ideas were defeated at the polls, and absolutely not admit that their ideas are wrong (not possible), so they take it as a personal affront and attack their opponents accordingly. It's just what liberals are and what they do.And the disgusting piece of it all is that this tactic has worked too well for too long. Government isn't the debating society it was intended to be, where the best ideas are brought forth, tested and melded into the best course of action. It's professional wrestling. Lots of grunting, bravado and taunts, followed by a fake contest won by the script-writers.
________________________________________________
22 comments:
From my Facebook...
Jason wrote: "There are many taxes that are required and useful in order to improve Total Factor Productivity (transportation and infrastructure) in our economy. These in a broad sense are generally useful; although a percentage of this can be debated whether it improves TFP or not or can be done through other means. What you are addressing are measures regarding distribution of wealth: There are two extremes of thought on this: One: provide no redistribution of wealth and let the poor survive however they might. And the other would be that the poor deserve a certain level of standard of living and we should make sure they have this through redistribution projects. What is in question is what IS this standard of living that all are entitled to? In the case of healthcare, this is not just a matter of poor vs. not, but perhaps sick vs. not or some other measure. I don't have the answer, but have I properly posed the question? There are plenty of passages in the Torah-Bible that talk about taking care of the poor. I don't see much about letting them tough it out on their own. If you (the greater you, not you specifically John) believe that this should only be done through your local churches, then why should you even give to the poor through your church if you think that it will just make the poor lazy? Unless this gift is with religious strings attached. For the non-religious, taxes are the most universal way to provide for those who have fallen on hard times with no religious strings attached. I haven't determined for myself what the standard for the lowest level living conditions are that we in the US should require through redistribution programs. I know excesses when I see them, and I see injustices when I see them. Any thoughts people?"
Typically my religious Conservative readers don't mind giving to the poor... And statistics show that they typically give more to charity than their more Liberal counterparts. (ironic...) They seem to believe the government forcing the collection and redistribution of wealth is just too inefficient and inaccurate...
Meaning their are too many bureaucrats being paid and they really don't care who they give to, so they just keep giving whether the person really needs it or not... The more they give, the fewer complaints they get... And, besides they get paid the same, and they have no real tie to or responsibility for the money. (just ask for more...) This would therefore reward the liars and cheats. and continue to grow the system...
Jason wrote: "You've got some good points. Also, depending on who you get the money from, also determines what you feel about the gift: 1. A sense of entitlement 2. Gratitude"
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." --
Benjamin Franklin
I was looking for the quote about:
The union when fail when the people figure they can vote themselves free money...
and found the one you copied in... Then I figured pretty much most of his quotes are worth re-reading...
I believe that quote originally came from Socrates. The failures of Nanny State government have been around, it seems, a long time.
J. Ewing
"The failures of Nanny State government have been around, it seems, a long time."
I suppose I am beyond convincing relative to the nanny state and it's assorted failures. But I suppose it's worth trying to explain to child who came to kindergarten unable to speak English, and who graduates from high school with honors, that the nanny state has failed them. Or a person whose pension was wiped out by the mismanagement of their employer, and who is now dependent on a government job now, to put food on the table, and who will be dependent on the nanny state's retirement benefits, and the nanny state's Social Security to put food on the table in the future. Maybe Chip Cravaack can put those things on the list of concerns he wants to take to Washington.
Wow, so many misconceptions, in one short post!
"This is the power and weakness of America, we get to actively argue at both the logical and emotional level."
Here's the problem, right here. It is impossible, by definition, to "argue" logically or to "debate" emotionally. Good governance, like all good decisions, should be made on a pure logical basis that INCLUDES the emotional factors. That is, it is a good decision to marry the girl, partly but not entirely because I love her. I can "feel" like everybody in the country ought to have the "right" to free health care, but that's not logically possible because someone else would have to be taxed (or enslaved) to provide it. If and only if you can find a logical means to gain the emotional upside without the logical downside, do you have a logical policy.
"It shows how broad brushes and stereotypes can and are applied. Which we know are not correct because everyone's beliefs, intent and methods are unique."
It also shows how extremely useful these broad brushes can be. I don't have to look at every individual's motivations so long as I have a working explanation for their position. I don't even have to think through an
individual's argument if the "talking point" has already been refuted. I can just call it the "liberal position" and go on. By using that shorthand, I can also communicate to others the fundamental "truth" that the position arises from the beliefs of a leftist. Which leftist doesn't matter.
"It implies that the people in a "party" with a slight majority can make significant changes. The reality as we have seen during the last 2 yrs with Obama and his legislative slight majority is that they tend to in fight..."
If that is infighting, I prefer gridlock. The health care bill, the Stimuless, TARP, no budget, $4 trillion in new debt and barely squeaking out passage of a no-tax-increase bill should be considered significant. Of vastly more
importance is not only the partisanship, but the fact that these majority "accomplishments" were all the wrong things to accomplish. At one time the theory was that the best ideas were thrashed out in debate and passed on a bipartisan basis. That the practice doesn't match the theory is not the fault of the theory.
J. Ewing
"It raises the question of who is the most greedy and self centered? Those demanding money for nothing or those fighting to keep the money they inherited or earned? In God's eyes, is there really a difference?"
2 Corinthians 9:7 "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." The Bible also says thou shalt not steal, and our own Constitution
prohibits slavery. What is the taxation of one for the benefit of another if not theft or to some degree slavery? Understanding this obvious moral distinction is the primary difference between modern liberals and conservatives.
"Is a Conservative truly smarter and more logical than a Liberal? Or do they just have different logics and ideals?"
Are we supposed to answer this question without resort to stereotypes? :-/ I contend that "liberal logic" doesn't exist because the results of their policies are not logically connected to their stated intent. One short example: They say they're reducing the cost of health care by eliminating caps on coverage, when clearly an increased benefit will require an increased premium. You can either admit that conservatives ARE smarter and more logical, or that liberals rely on feelings about what they WANT to happen, rather than thinking it through. I'm not sure it matters which.
"Personally, I wonder how one of our brightest founding Fathers would have fared in our America of Modern politics. Do we really think things were simpler, more logical or better back then?"
Simpler, definitely, and thus more capable of logical solution. At the same time, we have overly complicated almost everything by insisting that a few elites in government can create incomprehensibly complex solutions to problems that previous well-intentioned but perverse government "solutions" created. Simple is more logical, and logic is more simple when you have individual freedom linked to individual responsibility.
"Would the founding fathers be proud or disappointed in us?"
They would be appalled to find that their Constitution, enshrining personal freedom and limited government, has been so perverted as to make Congress more imperious than King George ever thought of being.
"Any ideas for improving this discombobulated chaotic mess we call American Politics? ... have us Americans become so self interested, lazy and stupid that the script writers and TV ads have taken over our leadership?"
I think you just answered your own question. The last election offers some hope and, if not, there is always the full-blown disaster that will naturally follow to bring about the necessary but very painful change. "Nothing like execution at dawn to focus the mind," eh?
J. Ewing
"The Bible also says thou shalt not steal, and our own Constitution
prohibits slavery."
It didn't when it was originally drafted of course. But the founding fathers implicitly understood that they were tolerating evil which is why they dealt with the subject indirectly.
"What is the taxation of one for the benefit of another if not theft or to some degree slavery?"
Taxation.
Is taxation a form of theft? To answer that, I looked at my basic reference for all definitions, the Merriam Webster Dictionary, which I view as authoritative on the American English language. Merriam Webste, in the relevant part, defines theft as:
"a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property."
From this I derive several questions? Is the act of taxation, a "felonious taking". Which criminal statute does a taxing statute violate?
Is taxation statute an "unlawful taking"? Can a law be unlawful? What law does a taxation statute violate?
I refer to theft in the moral sense-- the forcible taking of property that belongs to another. Whether what gets taken goes to some third party or stuffed in the robber's pocket really does not matter. Robin Hood was, at root, a robbin' hood. Don't think you are forced to pay taxes? Try not paying sometime.
"I refer to theft in the moral sense-- the forcible taking of property that belongs to another. Whether what gets taken goes to some third party or stuffed in the robber's pocket really does not matter."
I don't know what to make of the notion that definition of theft as provided in Merriam Webster does not include, implicitly at least, a moral dimension. Not all laws, and not even all criminal laws, have a moral foundation, but I think laws like those against theft certainly do.
Under our system of government as established by the constitution, "forcible taking" is perfectly legal and proper when required by law and when due process is followed. I am comfortable with that. I believe the founders when they wrote the constitution struck a proper moral balance when they wrote those provisions. But it's a free country, and all of us are free to disagree with founders and their work. Nonetheless, all of us are bound by it.
Now we circled around to a previous post.
What does a successful person OWE the state and their fellow citizens for enabling their success?
The reality is the highly successful person would not be successful in many other countries that have different governments or citizens. They may be starving, in jail or dead...
Civil stability, rule of law, property rights, safe food and water, learning institutions, etc are all key to the success. If the Country is entitled to a percentage of the earnings because of it's investment in the "successful persons" enterprise/life, then it is correct that they get a cut...(ie fair)
As for theft or slavery... Laws are not "Universal". Laws are made by Governments/Societies and we choose to live under governments/societies. Since taxes are set by law, they can not be illegal, theft or slavery.
Now we can disagree and work to change them, but as long the Supreme court does not strike the law down. They are our societies voice... Find something to like about it...
Or maybe you can move to some small African country... They probably have small government and low taxes.
"What does a successful person OWE the state and their fellow citizens for enabling their success?"
It varies, but we find out every April 15th or thereabouts.
What does the successful person owe the State? Nothing. The State can punish success, but not create it. You do not create success by taking the wealth of one citizen for the benefit of another. There is a vast difference between taxation and charity.
Now, are there certain things in which government facilitation of cooperation might improve the overall economy? Absolutely. Things like air traffic control patterns and other TRULY "interstate commerce" activities come immediately to mind. For state governments, facilitation of a public education for all children is probably a "public good" in the conventional sense, in that it leads to a better economy and allows future citizens to properly participate in their own governance. In short, taxes should go for things that we pretty much all agree are "public goods," and ONLY to the degree we do so voluntarily. That is, government shouldn't be wasting tax money on posh palaces for education or sports, or on paying people to not work. 50% plus 1 is not a consensus.
I propose a simple-- given the modern computer age-- expedient for determining government spending priorities. That is, present every taxpayer (state and federal), with an "itemized" tax bill, based on, say, $1000 in taxes. Let every taxpayer then, if he wishes, increase or decrease the amount of each line item as he sees fit, with his total taxes then being divided accordingly. The sum of these millions of "votes" would then constitute the "agreed" budget for the following year. No doubt this would have to be phased in, because otherwise some very large sacred cows would be slaughtered. But the theft would end.
J. Ewing
"What does the successful person owe the State? Nothing."
This is simply untrue. Taxes are legal obligation. Successful people owe them to the state, and so do unsuccessful people.
I love the Bible's ability to support pretty much anyone's point of view... And better yet, I found a cool site where we can search by topic... Open Bible
Romans 13:1-7 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ..."
Matthew 6:19-21 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
And remember this G2A Classic...
Maybe God truly is leading our government...
Your G2A classic says that governments are appointed by God to FORCE people to be charitable? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Forced charity is theft, and not charity at all. The Lord loves a cheerful giver, not a victim.
Yes, governments are "instituted" to protect the righteous from the wicked. When they start afflicting the righteous they aren't following God's law but their own, and humans are remarkably fallible that way. The Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil, but I believe that the pursuit of power is even moreso. Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.
J. Ewing
That's the other thing I like about the Bible... We are free to see what we agree with and interpret as we choose...
So if you were God, what would you do if Humans were stopping the "cheerful giving", and becoming too self centered. (ie "treasures on earth")
I wonder what Net Worth would be consider excessive "Laying Up of Treasures on Earth" in God's opinion. (ie $200K, $500K, $1 mil, $1 bil, Other)
One way to reduce our tax is to give more away to those that truly need it... At least we get to pick the charity...
Again, the problem seems to be that government handouts are seen as equal to charity, and it simply isn't and cannot be true. Government "charity" robs both the giver and receiver. It robs the "giver" of both the opportunity to give and the opportunity to not give, as well as the option to feel good about the giving. It deprives the receiver of the opportunity for gratitude and the sense of obligation that goes with it. It's theft on both ends with a lot of waste in the middle.
J. Ewing
It is far from ideal...
"Again, the problem seems to be that government handouts are seen as equal to charity, and it simply isn't and cannot be true."
I don't generally perceive the services the government provides as charity.
Post a Comment