Glenden BrownFreedom From Want
As I continue my desultory series on the four freedoms, I find myself, in the face of the seemingly endless sludge of bad economic news pondering the idea of freedom from want.
FDR’s original line was:
The third is freedom from want–which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world . . . That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
The US economy is foundering in a way that seems truly unprecedented - massive corporations are staggering under the weight of years, perhaps even decades, of poor decision making. The US automakers provide just one example of companies now paying the price for incredibly short sighted planning. Banks - after making billions of dollars in irresponsible loans - are collapsing. US Airlines are losing passengers and money. Unemployment is rising. Real incomes have actually declined over the last few years. America’s consumer driven economy has been sustained for a long time by consumer borrowing - but millions of consumers are completely maxed out. Our international economic competitors are in strong positions.
At Americablog this morning, Chris links to an interview in which:
. . . this money manager suggest[s] that the cost of the bailouts will tip the US economy beyond a recession and into a depression. If you have the time, watch the video inside the link. Agree or disagree, but it’s an interesting discussion. We’re making it much too easy and comfortable for businesses as we bail them out or even talk about bailing them out. Look at how Congress treated individuals in bankruptcy and tell me this is fair.
A huge portion of the economic crisis can be laid at the feet of the Republicans who have dismantled regulatory laws and agencies. The inevitable crash - now engulfing US and world financial markets - is proving increasingly and unexpectedly ugly. The Great Depression in the US was triggered by crashing financial markets that toppled an already unstable economy. We’re in much the same boat now.
Economically, the US is rapidly becoming a basket case. Like the government with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the world may decide we’re too big to be allowed to fail and bail us out.
There are, however, deeper issues. Beginning in the early 70s (economists date it to 1973), real incomes for lower and middle class families in the US began a long period of stagnation and decline - which save for a brief period in the 1990s - continues until today. The factors in this remain unchanged from the late 1980s (as documented in Dollars and Dreams); in the 1950s, a single income family could purchase housing for about 20% of their income;transportation, food, clothing, all consumed smaller portions of that’s family’s income than today. In order to maintain a lifestyle similar to their counterparts in the 1950s, today’s families require two incomes to just keep up.
Beginning in the 1980s, the US (and to a lesser extent Great Britain) began to experience, after a long period of decline, increasing economic disparity. Since 2001, in the US, the rich have become significantly richer, everyone else has gotten poorer. In Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman argues that New Deal and World War Two government policies were deliberately designed to reduce economic disparity by two means - first by transferring wealth from the rich and large corporations through taxation and second by elevating living standards and incomes for the majority through strengthening unions, supporting national infrastructure, improving access to education and providing better economic opportunities. The result was a period of unprecedent and widespread prosperity.
It’s no accident that the US’s infrastructure is collapsing at the same time that tax rates - especially on the wealthy - are at the lowest they’ve been in decades. Conservative anti-tax crusades have literally starved government of the basic resources needed to maintain infrastructure.
The silver lining of needing massive investment in public works is the positive outcome of such investments - they create millions of jobs and can help return the economy to stable footing. Public works, however, aren’t sufficient.
Krugman builds the case that strong unions actually support wages in general - union jobs pay better so they attract employees. To compete non-union employers offer higher wages. Unions also help equalize the power imbalance between employers and employees. Unions remain the best protection employees have from being exploited by their employers.
Every night in America, people go to bed hungry. Millions of Americans suffer food insecurity - unsure if next week the kitchen will be stocked. One-third of America’s children live in poverty. Millions of us lack health care. In a nation with the excess of material wealth that we possess, these simple facts are criminal. There is no good reason why anyone should be hungry in the US. There is no good reason why anyone should be homeless.
Freedom from want is about demanding our society grant each person a basic level of dignity in their lives.
I know the fears - that creating a social safety means people will take advantage, that people who are able to work will simply refuse to and live on charity. But such fears seem exaggerated to me. Will there be some people who try to game the system and who could work but won’t? Well yes. But, providing those who are unable to work with human dignity seems a truly worthy goal. I think about my aunt Bonnie. She deserves a life of greater dignity than she has. She worked for years even though her feet are physically deformed and walking was is painful that she barely do it. I know the conservative dream is that private institutions can and will meet all the needs of society but that’s been tried and it failed. Hell, during the Irish famines of the 1840s, the British government discovered the horrific limits of depending on private charity - and untold numbers died in Ireland as a result. We need to stop re-learning the same lessons time and time again.
The trade offs aren’t difficult. Higher taxes in exchange for greater material security. I look at it this way: My health insurance premiums through my employer is $100 per month (it does not include dental, vision or mental health). I have co-pays for prescriptions on a sliding scale of up to $50 per prescriptions. If my taxes go up anything less than $100 per month for universal health care, I’m better off. If my co-pays come down I’m better off. Maybe unemployment taxes (FUTA) go up; if however I have greater security and peace of mind when facing unemployment or job transitions, isn’t it worth it?
Our European cousins have largely resolved these questions - deciding that higher tax rates, lower economic disparity, slightly higher unemployment rates and sometimes lower GDP growth rates are an acceptable compromise in exchange for overall healthier society. The effects of economic downturns in European nations are experience less severely than in the US.
Freedom from want truly means constructing a society in which the hungry are fed, the homeless are housed, the sick are treated. From the perspective of Christian theology, it is a matter of enacting policies that advance the cause of social justice - defined as creating a society in which those persons who are farthest from the centers of power and privilege nevertheless has their basic, physical needs met.
The economic experiment of the last few years - with vast and deep tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations (in practice the US has one of the effective corporate tax rates in the OECD) has not produced widespread prosperity. Instead, it is produced significantly widespread economic hardship and the worst economic track record since Herbert Hoover. We’ve tried it and it doesn’t work - it’s time to try something else in an effort to create a society free from want.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
A realignment of our national interests has to take place. Economic disparities between the rich & poor along with unfettered corporate welfare (auto/financial/airline industries) have led our nation to value greed (corporate profits) over quality of life for the masses.
We are told that the masses (in the U.S.) have a superior quality of life because of the affordability of consumer goods sold at Wal-Mart and such. But how long will that “quality of life” last when the masses that are working part-time at Wal-mart, Home Depot, Lowes and McDonalds can no longer afford to purchase those same goods, visit a health care provider or even purchase a dinner meal outside of the “Dollar menu”.
Our nation needs to replace the greed that is the underlying motive of our “quality of life” with a compassion that benefits everyone and not just those with a higher credit score.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Glenden,
If you feel strongly that income inequality is a major issue, are you doing something about it personally?
In effect are you putting your money where your mouth is?
It is easy to say that we should take money from the “rich” but if you and others feel that it is an issue, are you giving up your money until the amount you make is equal to the average American’s income?
Or should you give until your income is equal to the poverty level?
For a family of 4, that’s about $20,000.
I don’t know your family situation, but are you living what you preach?
Seems to me, that should be the standard, shouldn’t it?
If you want to reduce income inequality, no one is stopping you but you.
So what do you say?
September 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
That’s cute Bob - very typical - you go right up to the edge of accusing me of hypocrisy but you don’t quite cross the line. It’s a nice distraction.
FWIW, I’ve been an advocate for economic justice through my work with the Coalition of Religious Communities for almost a decade now. I’ve worked with to elect candidates to public office who will implement policies to redress economic injustice. I’ve planned workshops and public training and education. I’ve been a speaker at the annual Poverty Partnership Annual Summit twice to train activists.
All of which points to the deeper problem. We have lots of people who don’t know where or how to start influencing our politicians and holding them accountable. I know people who look at the myriad scandals of the Bush administration and feel it is so huge they can’t possibly make a difference and throw their hands in the air and walk away. What we need are committed citizens who care - to vote, to write letter, to call elected officials and hold them accountable. When Payday lenders prey on Utah communities, CORC is there - fighting for the little guy. We can’t do it alone. The constant flood of sleaze from Conservatives makes a lot of decent people believe politics and government are so inherently bad that they want nothing to do with it. If we want to fix the system, we need to change the people in it - we need to get rid of the corporate schills calling themselves legislators, we need to break the back of big money’s influence in politics. That’s how we effect the kind of long term change we need. It means those of us who care networking and sharing stories and strategies.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Glenden,
That laundry list of activity is great and I applaud you for acting in THAT manner in accordance with your principles.
But it completely misses the point of my question.
You are free to act as you believe, I fully support your freedom to do that.
But before you start using the government to take even more money out of my pocket (chime in here with the chant of “I want to take all your dimes Albert/Larry) are you giving up voluntarily your own money?
No one is stopping anyone who believes in income inequality from giving up their income…shouldn’t you be willing to live what you want before you require it of others?
September 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I wait for the pieces of detritus from the progressive movement to sink to the bottom of the River, and feed upon it to grow large.
I want my income equalized Glendon, FEED ME!!
September 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
You are arguing that my call for societal transformation is invalid unless I am willing to live at the poverty level. It’s a false argument.
That’s like saying I can’t advocate for women’s rights unless I’m a woman, that I can’t advocate for the end of racism unless I’m a person of color, that I can’t argue for wheelchair accessible buildings if I’m not in a wheelchair. I don’t need to live in poverty to know poverty is an attack on human dignity.
I don’t need to go hungry to know it is wrong to allow people to go hungry. Look at it another way: I have a good job which allows me to take PTO to attend the state legislature and advocate for the people who can’t take time off of their jobs to advocate for themselves. It’s not a prisoner’s dilemna or a zero sum game.
The problem in our society isn’t a lack of resources - it is that resources are mal-distributed. Too few people have control of too much wealth. Such mal-distribution distorts society - it creates pressure on the middle class so that our economic situation is much more unstable. So many of us desperately fear we will lose our precarious economic perch.
By creating a progressive and fair tax system, we create a society in which our own economic perch becomes less precarious. If you look at US history (and other developped nations) what you quickly realize is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to effective social policy; despite the anecdotes, citizens of the OECD nations aren’t ready to give up universal health care or the social safety net. I believe in a tax system that satisfies Rawls’ concept of blindness - we craft the rules as if we don’t know how we will benefit from them.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The is a well-kept secret most rich people know, and it is the reason this subject is getting more and more attention.
Self-made wealthy people for sure, understand that their wealth is derived by sucking it up from the middle class.
No middle class, no more wealth.
When middle class people are sucked out and down, the rich see it pretty quickly, a decline in wealth.
I do not think Bob speaks for the wealthy. I think he envies them and believes that by standing up for individual responsibility (greed and free markets) he is brown nosing the rich.
I think the rich would prefer Bob S. crawl back in…
September 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Glenden
You are arguing two different positions: Zero Sum game and Non-Zero Sum games.
In the Non-Zero Sum scenarios, the enlargement of one person’s rights, access or wealth doesn’t decrease mine. Thus it is acceptable to argue for women rights, end of racism, equal access for the disabled without being any of those.
Increasing their rights does not mean I lose any of mine. Since it is impossible in some cases to turn into that which you advocate, I would agree that it is unreasonable for you to do so.
Living your belief in this case means actively pursuing the achievement of this goals.
Would you demand that someone else give up their time and energy to pursue these goals just because you believe in them?
In the Zero Sum game, income inequality as you’ve phrased it, you are treating it as a win lose. You are claiming the main (or a ) way someone can increase their income is requiring those making more money give up some theirs. This is a goal that is achievable without physical change on your part and is something that you can personally do without endangering your health.
Since you are in this case wanting to make it mandatory to decrease my wealth to increase the other person, I don’t think it unreasonable to see if you are living your belief.
I argue that closing the income inequality gap is a NON-ZERO Sum game. I can, like you, work to increase the access to the resources. Note that I can do this without taking the resources from another person.
Increased financial education in school (we are already paying for school). Charities, non-profit groups, personal investment of time - those are voluntary decreases in another person’s wealth by their choice, not mine or yours.
So, again….are you living your beliefs or not?
September 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Welcome to the porch Big Dog William. Pleased to have you.
I look forward to your help speaking on behalf to thinking Veterans and shooing the pups off the porch.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Bob - The fallacy in your thinking is that your tax dollars go directly to other people and you realize no benefits at all. Your tax dollars (even in our currently broken system) purchase roads to drive on, water to drink, a public school system, and so on. Increases taxes to create a stronger, more effective safety benefits everyone - if we have universal healthcare, you benefit as well as the family across town that doesn’t currently have health insurance. That their net change is greater than yours doesn’t negate the fact that you have benefitted. You pay unemployment taxes right now - you may never need to make an unemployment claim but the security of knowing it’s available is important. Think of it as a broad-based insurance system creating more security for each of us.
My whole point is that creating a broad, well-designed social safety net is a non-zero sum proposition. We all benefit.
And while I’m at it, what do you have against helping your fellow man?
September 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Glenden,
First, I realize that my tax dollars are used to my benefit, thus you have never heard me arguing against paying taxes.
That is why I stated
I find this statement to be misleading
Since we are already paying for roads, public schools, defense; increasing taxes for some people does not increase their benefit since they can’t go to school more often, don’t drive on roads more often etc. The increased tax money will go to reduce income inequality, why else increase the taxes on the wealth instead of everyone?
I also disagree with you on “universal healthcare” -nice euphemism for tax payer support medical insurance for the lower income. People already have access to health care. Local, county and state support (tax payer again) hospitals. Charity or Non-profit hospitals - voluntary contributions….mostly from the wealthy people you want to tax more, right?
I already have health insurance; taking away more of my earned money to provide health insurance for others doesn’t benefit me. Reducing governmental burden through administrative costs, better approval process for medicines, treatments and devices would benefit me more. How does taking my money to pay for another person’s insurance benefit me?
Increased taxes won’t go to those basic services–otherwise the tax burden would be increasing for everyone, right? The increased money, coming from the wealthy would be used for those with lower income. By the way, you never answered what is an acceptable minimum income level?
Currently 43 Million people pay no income at all or even get more money back then they pay in. What percentage of the governmental benefit are they using compared to what they pay for?
As I see it, the crux of your argument is those with lower incomes deserve more money then they are earning so it is up to those making more to give it to them. The form may be increased welfare checks, lowered or no medical costs; but it is still taking money from one to give to another.
As far as helping my fellow man, I have absolutely nothing against it. I’m all for it actually. What I don’t want, is you or the government telling me when, where and how much help I have to give.
As in the abortion debate here on this site, I think the government is the wrong agency to determine what is right for me. I give as I choose to, what charities I support, what portion of my time and efforts I give and where and to whom.
Taking greater amounts of my money is making me a slave to someone else, I have to work X number of hours so person Y can enjoy benefit Z that they did not personally earn.
So before you start taking even more money out of my pocket, I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask if you are living your beliefs or not….are you going to answer or keep dodging?
September 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Bob S:
I would appreciate it if you and jdberger would quit associating my name with others on the blog. I don’t speak for them, and it seems like a cheap tactic. Albert never asked for “all your dimes”, that was me alone and you know it. You also know my “give me all your dimes” remark was a joke, so quit being disingenuous please!
September 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Larry, there is nothing you can do to change their minds. They are projecting their own tribal mentality.
In there minds, we MUST all be of like mind and always ‘back’ each other.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Larry,
I apologize, I couldn’t remember who did that line but wanted to credit the appropriate person. Albert, sorry sir.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Bob S:
Apology accepted, but let me ask a tough question. What if somebody even more self important then the current crop of Republicans got into office, (maybe after this November), and decided that the wealthy had been so trod upon that there had to be compensation. Since our economy is so bad by that time, and it is obvious that if all welfare payments are stopped, thousands will die. Nonetheless, president Palin decides to take the welfare money and pay it out to the top 1% of Americans. You are in that class at the time.
Would you take the money?
September 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Bob - I’m not dodging your question I’m ignoring it. Here’s why: no answer I give will satisfy you. If I say “I give 10% of my income to the poor” you’d reply, “Why not 20%?” And so on. If I were to say, “I sold all my possessions and I live out of a shopping cart,” you’d ask, “Why don’t you give the shopping cart to someone in more desperate need?” No answer I give will satisfy your demand that I be ideologically pure.
Go back to my original post - notice that one of the issues I identified is degrading infrastructure in the US. Our current level of taxation is insufficient to meet our shared needs. Why shouldn’t the wealthy pay more in taxes than the rest of us? They have benefitted far more from living the US than the rest of us and the impact on them is far less than the impact on the rest of us. Look at this way: Paris Hilton made $9 million last year. Let’s say she pays 50% in taxes. She still has $4.5 million to live on. Now, if someone earning $45,000 pays 10% in taxes, they have 40,500 to live on. That’s a huge difference. Why shouldn’t the wealthy - who have experienced the greatest benefit of living in our society - pay more in taxes than the rest of us? Bear in mind that payroll taxes like Social Security hit the working poor and the middle class much harder than they impact the wealthy.
You seem to hold the idea that people who receive welfare are “unworthy” of receiving it. You seem to think that you won’t be covered by a universal health care program. Universal health care is called universal for a reason. It covers everyone. When you consider that every other industrialized nation has some form of universal health care, it makes you wonder why we don’t. When you read that CUBA has better health care than the US, it makes you wonder if maybe we aren’t doing something wrong. Our current system isn’t working. The US is the only industrialized nation in which getting sick can bankrupt you - even if you have health insurance. Ours is the only industrialized nation which has not figured out how to deliver health care to every one. The notion that health care costs are high because of government issues is false: our health care costs are high because we have insurance companies with teams of bureaucrats whose job it is to make sure they don’t have to pay for our medical treatments. The approval proces for new drugs and devices takes time for a reason - that doesn’t make waiting for them any easier or even ideal but there are valid medical and scientific reasons.
Your repeating a long time conservative trope that welfare amounts to giving someone something they didn’t earn and by implication don’t deserve. I’ll just repeat what I said before:
It’s not about setting everyone up in a McMansion with three SUVs. It’s about making certain that no one goes to bed hungry or sleeps under a freeway overpass or in the elevator at library squars. It’s about seeing to it that the sick receive medical care. It’s about seeing that a minimum level of human diginity is afforded to everyone.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Sounds like an excuse.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Larry, your tough question about wealth redistribution (above) sparks another from my end.
What if all the rich muckity-mucks and politicians, anyone accused and found guilty of mischeivous corporate or political crimes, or who profitted from war, were made to be poor? Had their wealth stripped from them and returned to the community and victims? Flip it around, it seems to me to be closer to justice.
Hope that makes sense.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
What if they all just move, and take their money with them?
Whoops, that has already happened to a certain degree.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Glenden,
You are wrong, an truthful answer would suffice. I don’t care how much you give, that is your business. As I have repeatedly said, are you living your values before you are trying to take more money out of my pocket…that is the question.
So, let’s take this a little bit at a time.
I agree that our infrastructure is degrading. I don’t think the tax base is the reason, it’s a matter of focus. The Constitution spells out many things the government is supposed to do. I support taxes for those reasons Of course, our current budget has over 50% of the tax money going toward entitlements.
Our shared needs? Please define that further, I take it you mean those entitlements, in addition to defense, etc? That is where I think the government has lost focused, it’s trying to provide bread and circuses to the masses instead of maintaining the infrastructure. 32% — 43 million people don’t pay any income tax but receive benefits. What would happen if we taxed them fairly and reduced their benefits, think we couldn’t afford to pay for the infrastructure?
This sounds familiar, I wonder where I’ve heard it’s like before. Let’s see is it:
Sorry, but I don’t want to live in a Marxist/Socialist/Fascist, whatever you want to call it society. You say the rich have benefited the most, so what? Have they not the right to benefit from our system? I say yes. Are they paying taxes? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, mostly Yes.
Want to reform the tax system, I’ll support that. How about a flat tax, everyone pays regardless. Call it 10%, 15%. Isn’t it fair that everyone pays the same proportion? Regardless of whether you or I think a person deserves 9 million or 4.5 million or even 45K, it’s what they earned, inherited etc. It is THEIR MONEY, it’s not mine, it’s not yours.
How about the other side of the coin: those who earn nothing. Those who won’t work for themselves. Should they be allowed to take what is mine, what is your, or Paris Hilton’s because they don’t want to work? If you feel that way, open your house, leave your wallet on the street, give away your money as you choose. That is your right. You don’t have a right to say “I think you make more money then you need, give up the rest”. Not to me, not to anyone.
Absolutely not true. I just don’t want the government or you telling me how much I should give. I have stated repeatedly that I believe in the “safety net’ you talk about. It shouldn’t be a long term program though. It should be a hand up, not a continual hand out.
And if I do decide that someone is “unworthy” of recieving my money, shouldn’t I be allowed to say so. To give to others that I feel are “worthy, isn’t that my right?
For example, there are many scholarships that are based on application, essay, committee evaluation, right? Are you going to go out there and tell them the government gets to decide who gets that money?
How about those freedoms you mentioned in previous posts? How about the freedom not to pay for healthcare that I won’t use. I was single for a very long time and took out the minimum health insurance that I could from my job. Why? Because I didn’t use it and it wouldn’t be fically sound for me to pay for greater coverage. I went to the doctor no more then twice a year from 22 to 30. Universal coverage, under every plan I’ve seen, involved mandated coverage, premiums, services etc. What about the freedom to opt out?
Nice liberal talking point. Want better health care then the US has, immigrate. That is your freedom. Want to provide healthcare for others, pay their premiums. I won’t stop you, that is your freedom.
I agree the health care system needs reform, turning America into a Marxist or Socialist country isn’t the way that I want to do it.
You talk about income inequality and want to take away from others to reduce it. I disagree with that approach. I feel we can increase the opportunity for everyone to earn, create, inherit greater income. That doesn’t involve taking away from others.
Those that want to work should be given that opportunity. You talk as if everyone on welfare is a great person who just happens to be in a spot of trouble. That isn’t the case. Let’s help those people. Let’s set a minimum level of governmental help and supply that so they can get back on their feet. Want to do more for them, go for it.
If these words are true, and I believe them to be, then with those rights are the corresponding responsibilities. People have to create, earn if you will, their own life, liberty and what makes them happy.
But some people don’t want to work, don’t want to get back on their feet. Some feel they deserve to have their housing and food provided for them, for those I say tough luck. Sorry if that sounds cold, but they have the freedom to choose. If I want to help them, I will. If you want to help them, you can. Go for it…but the government isn’t the agency to do it.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Larry:
I have tried the same tactic with Bob - take Bob’s points to their logical conclusion - with no success. I doubt Bob will formulate much of an answer to your well-posed question but, on the other hand, am certain that his hand-waving-in-lieu-of-response will be entertaining nonetheless!
September 12th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Larry,
First thanks for the compliment - regarding the 1%
I am not even in the top 5%, yet. I plan on getting there. Ooops, that is the capitalist in me, thinking that I can earn as much as I want. Too bad, I will get there.
I would oppose this plan because the money should go back to those that paid it in. Not home the government feels deserves it. As I oppose mandatory income re-distribution from the wealthy to the poor, so I oppose it in the opposite direction.
If you are asking a thereotical question of if I’m in that class, will I take money that I didn’t pay in? I probably would, but turn around and donate it to a charity. Fighting the government often wastes more money then it saves.
Hope this answers the question.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Glenden,
Simple question, What is an acceptable equal income level?
September 12th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Bob S.:
This is where you are sooooo wrong. But for those at the bottom of the ladder, those at the top 5% would be broke (or, at best, be at the bottom of the ladder). IOW, those at the top owe those at the bottom and in between something for their financial success. An extra point or two is not going to spell the end for those near the top, especially when it is coming back their way, regardless.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Albert,
I don’t know what you mean by “but for those at the bottom of the ladder, those at the top 5% would be broke” Could you explain exactly how that works?
And why do those at the tome OWE those at the bottom and in between?
Why do I who have worked hard, gone to school to further myself, made the right decisions OWE those who haven’t done those things?
September 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Bob:
If folks at the bottom of the economic ladder did not purchase cheeseburgers at McDonalds, the corporation would not exist today.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Albert,
That is a valid transaction, the people purchasing receive fair value for the cash they tender. The person providing the service or good does not owe the person purchasing it anything other then what was purchased.
Does your doctor give you a cash refund every visit? How about your mechanic, plumber, barber?
Do you give back money to your employer for providing you with a job?
It’s the same concept, without the corporation you wouldn’t have a job. So how much do you take out of your wallet to give back to the company?
September 12th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Bob - since I’m not proposing an “equal income level” I’m not even going to deal with it. It’s like those debates when anti-feminists claim that feminists believe men and women are the same - equal is not the same.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Glenden,
I have seen you comment on the income inequality repeatedly. If there is an income inequality, it stands there should be an income equality, right?
You have advocated taking more taxes from the wealthy and giving through benefits to those with lower income.
I’m asking where is the equilibrium point?
If you don’t want to name a single point, what is the lowest acceptable income level?
The highest income level?
September 12th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Bob:
You subjective son of a gun!
September 12th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Albert,
Yes, I am. Talk about income inequality and provide safety nets and social services is very impersonal. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, it’s about taking someone’s money.
That is why I ask Glenden and anyone else who advocates raising taxes to reduce the income inequality if they are living their beliefs.
It’s my money, just like in the abortion issues it’s the women’s body, it should be my decision of how I help others.
Who do you want making decisions on how much money you get to keep, you or the government?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Elitist control is the reason. In a democracy if you can give broke people expectations of money they didn’t earn as a simple transfer payment, you can get their vote and remain in power.
All the talk of morality and ethics of income equality is just window dressing to this esoteric fact, even if you advocates don’t know or accept it.
I think Lenin had a name for these types of people that support such schemes.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Bob - Why is it so many conservatives seem to think it’s okay to tell people who disagree with them to just leave the US? What’s up with that? It’s dishonest and cowardly. You managed to work in all the good slurs - fever dream fears of socialism taking over the US and fears that somehow your illusory freedoms will vanish. It’s all fever dream fears. The real world examples of European and Canada - where a strong social safety net and universal health care have created healthier populations, more stable societies and, it can be safely argued, more vital demoracy.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Oh and Bob - you’re the one who keeps talking about income inequality. I’m talking about economic disparity - a much broader concept of access to education, job opportunities and yes, the gap between rich and poor.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Hate to burst your bubble there Glendon, but while Canada has universal healthcare, it has far more real poverty than the US. While incomes may be comparable, the costs of living are absolutely not. The US is cheap to live in at the lower income levels.
One of the most telling indicators of Canadian poverty is the yard sales and thrift store offerings. In the States there is just about an avalanche of great stuff to buy(think Deseret Industries) and people just about give it away. I my living up there, the amount of true junk people were trying to sell was almost embarrassing.
More than a few people I knew there really struggled to put food on the table, even with public assistance monies. It is damn expensive to simply eat up there, at least outside the major metropolitan areas.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Let’s see how some of those other countries are doing all those marvelous things.
Tax burdens around the world (2005 single person)
Belgium 55.4%
Germany 51.8%
Hungary 50.5%
France 50.1%
Sweden 47.9%
Austria 47.4%
Italy 45.4%
Finland 44.6%
Czech Republic 43.8%
Poland 43.6%
Turkey 42.7%
Denmark 41.4%
Spain 39.0%
Greece 38.8%
Netherlands 38.6%
Slovak Republic 38.3%
Norway 37.3%
Portugal 36.2%
Luxembourg 35.3%
United Kingdom 33.5%
Canada 31.6%
Switzerland 29.5%
United States 29.1%
Iceland 29.0%
Australia 28.3%
Japan 27.7%
Ireland 25.7%
New Zealand 20.5%
Mexico 18.2%
Korea 17.3%
Glenden,
I didn’t tell you to move, I said if you wanted what Cuba had then move. I also said if you wanted it, pay for it yourself. Why is it so many liberals feel free to tell me that they want to take more of my money?
My freedoms are fast becoming illusory because of the desire to change America from a land of liberty ( I know it’s trite, but it was true at one point) to a land where the Nanny state controls all. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc.
You want to tell me I have to carry medical insure and probably even specify which carrier …Oh yea, the government, what level of coverage. Who is telling who what to do more?
The fears are real, how many new laws are created each year? Are you telling me all those laws don’t infringe on people’s freedoms?
Call it economic disparity or income inequality, it all boils down to the same thing. Some people have more money then others and you don’t think that is FAIR? So, in order to make things fair, we need to have the government tax those with more money.
You don’t seem to comment on the fact that currently approximately 32% of the population don’t even pay any income tax but the top 5% pays approximately 30% of all the income taxes.
Where is the break even point? If you don’t want to name a particular income level how about a range?
Since this is getting complicated, how about we boil it down?
1. Do you feel it is right for the government (e.g. approximately 50.1% of the population) to say how much money a person should be able to keep out of what they make?
2. In order to provide the proper level of dignity, what amount of income, benefits, subsidies, medical care, education, etc; is the minimum a person should have?
3. How will you maintain control of the various aspects of life in order to keep the economic differences to an acceptable level of disparity? (Realizing of course that some people will always achieve more then others)
September 12th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Cav:
I definitely think people found guilty of war crimes or other scams should give the money back. I’m still mad that everybody involved in the Savings and Loan scandal walked away with the booty while Bush’s dad said “Let’s sign this monster.”
Bob S:
So you WOULD let people die and take the money even if you had so much, you couldn’t even think of ways to spend it, but then you’d donate the money to your favorite charity. What’s that? Yourself? The NRA?
September 13th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Larry,
I never said that I would let people die. The fact is people are going to die every day.
Some are going to die of reasons that could be prevented and some will die no matter what anyone or any government can do.
You asked a very strange and unique hypothetical question and I answered. I don’t have to tell you what my favorite charity is but I will tell you it isn’t the NRA. The NRA isn’t a charity, although that organization has charitable agencies.
The question isn’t will I let people starve, the question here is who should be able to decide how much money I and everyone else keep and where that money should be spent.
The government has defined limited functions, correcting economic disparity isn’t one of them. The preamble to the Constitution lists “…promote the general welfare…” as a reason. To me, that means the government’s job is to set up the system so people in general can achieve as they will– that they have equal opportunity as whole. There will always be some people who earn more then others.
It is not the role of the government to decide that person(s) has made too much and take that “extra money” and give it to someone who has earned less.
To give the government that power is to lead down the path of tyranny in my opinion. If we give up our freedom to earn, what is next?
The government thinks I have too big of a house just for my wife and I, so I suddenly have 3 boarders? Governments thinking they know better then I do what I should or shouldn’t eat so we have governmental control of food? Wait, we have that one already in many places– latest example transfats ban.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Absolute freedom from want may be an economic impossibility given the economic assumption of infinite wants and finite resources. Ultimately, the answers to human “want” so defined must come from outside the world of materialism.
However, a good case can be made that to promote the general welfare, the politico-economic system, however organized, MUST provide a level of equality that is perceived as reasonably fair by its citizens. Otherwise the political system will be inherently unstable and eventually dictatorial from the left or the right. Many of the Western European countries with high levels of taxation and social welfare are prosperous, economically egalitarian, deeply democratic, and stable. Many third world countries have huge income inequalities with the resulting political instability and/or authoritarianism.
The conservative David Frum has recently written that
September 13th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Leo,
Good article, thanks for the link. Here are some other quotes from that article.
Sounds like a good arguments for 2 parent families, allowing the government to promote policies that encourage stable families.
Hadn’t thought of it that way, interesting prospective. It may or should create a dilemma for the liberals; aren’t we as a society supposed to encourage diversity?
Want to reduce economic disparity, control illegal immigration!
September 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Bob,
I’m glad you liked the article.
I support government policies that promote stable and prosperous traditional two-parent families. We are in definite agreement on this.
I don’t support procrustean uniformity of income. My general stance is against absolutism and for compromise and balance arrived through democratic means. I support a mixed capitalist system, but not unbridled capitalism, and certainly not communism.
I support a reform of our broken immigration system. Illegal immigrants work hard and do pay a lot of taxes (e.g. sales taxes) and miss out on the benefits of full participation in society, including many government benefits. Because they are illegal, they are often exploited, resulting in lower wages and a two-tiered economic system. Our agricultural sector and much of the economy of the Southwest would collapse without their labor. I see single Anglo’s panhandling in my prosperous neighborhood, while the illegals are at work or seeking work at the day labor office. Immigrants work hard to support their two parent families. If you have libertarian economic views, you surely favor greater freedom for both labor and goods to cross national boundaries to increase both prosperity and freedom. The economic activity of immigrants ultimately increases the wealth of the country, leading to a net economic benefit for all. If you have conservative social views, you will like the family values of Hispanics. Want to reduce economic disparity? Then bring people into society, and not leave them on the edges of it. What to promote family values? Then bring more family oriented immigrants into our country. Why do they come here? For family values. Here is a simple moral test. Would you commit a misdemeanor by working here illegally if it meant you could feed your family that might otherwise starve? Of course you would. At least I think you would. I would. Most people would. On the other hand, our society has a limited capacity to absorb immigrants. I would like to see an immigration system that is balanced and reasonable.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Bob S said:
Actually you didn’t say one way or the other. You failed to answer the question because you WOULD let people die for no other reason then the fact that they had fallen through the cracks. If there is a God, someday YOU will fall through those cracks, but don’t worry, if the people I want in office are there, you will get a chance to survive with your new found compassion.
Your favorite charity is a secret?
Leo:
Stunningly beautiful comment; last! I’ve never seen the intricacies of the immigrant issue articulated more thoughtfully. Definitely worthy of a top post. Unfortunately, Bob S won’t get it.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Thank you Leo for yet another sober appeal for justice and social equality as well as the lucid description of immigration reality.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Larry,
I get the impression you are trying to set up a straw man argument claiming I have no compassion.
You first asked:
I answered that I would oppose the program and would probably take the money. In turn I would donate the money to a charity. You are assuming that the charity that I would donate it to wouldn’t be working to feed, shelter or otherwise work with the needy. That is your assumption based on your perception.
You are also assuming that I wouldn’t be taking other actions to help feed the needy–is that a little bit of projection on your part?
I can’t believe that you are accusing me of wanting to let people starve based on an improbable scenario that you created.
I also note that you are using liberal trope that the people on welfare have “fallen through the cracks”. Sorry that isn’t the truth for the majority of the people. Are there people who fall through the cracks, yes but most people on welfare haven’t.
Some additional quotes from the testimony to Congress in 1995 but still relevant.
Medical care spending amounts to 54.1% of the money spent on welfare. Reduce teen pregnancies, reduce medicare spending, right?
We need to increase stability in families, but it appears that welfare may be working against that very need:
It is a fallacy to assume the vast majority of the people on welfare have “fallen through the cracks”. Most of the people on welfare are due to a direct result of the decisions and actions they make.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Bob:
You seem intent on justifying a guilty conscience!
Here’s a suggestion to east the pain. Stop trying so hard to justify Bush and his failed policies; and then open your mind to what Democrats offer. Both you and your family will be the better for doing so.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Leo; Sure reform the immigration system. Prosecute the scum that employ them.
Studies have shown after all is said and done illegal immigrants are a net drain on our economy, not to mention the vacuum of ethics as businesses that do not employ them must compete with those that do.
First if you have an illegal SS#, that is felony fraud, identity theft. In fact crossing the border without the benefit of customs in a federal felony in most cases. The employer if he has the poor saps where he wants them pays no benefits to his illegals, no UI, no health care co-payment, and is defrauding the society at large.
Employing illegal aliens is simply what I refer to as domestic outsourcing.
If you can somehow justify the activity in your no load state, that is already sucking off the largess of other states, of a further subsidy at the expense of both the chattel wage slave illegal alien, and the scofflaw employer, there is really very little hope for you to understand the depths to which this series of crimes pisses law abiding people off.
Syrupy sentiments do not excuse or in any way justify the behavior. Not to mention your laxity enabling rich jerk off elitists in Mexico to continue to abuse their own people.
The tide has turned, the round up is on. If I see it here in Washington State in liberal land, it can’t be far off where you live. The laws of this country shall be enforced at last. For my part I have been reporting employers of illegals to Homeland Security. The database is now fleshed out after the past 5 years, and enforcement now knows exactly where to go to apply the law to both the illegal aliens, and their felonious employers.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Albert,
You are reading into my words things that don’t exist in my mind.
I have no guilty conscience and no need to have one.
I agree that welfare is a failed program, but sorry I can’t blame it all on Bush.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Bob:
Your words speak for themselves, plainly and loudly!
September 13th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Albert,
I’m not sure if you are familiar with a term, if you aren’t here is the word of the day.
I notice you have stopped addressing the issues and are trying to make this about me. Does that qualify? I think it does as an ad hominem attack.
Has the “War On Poverty” removed poverty from our society?
Has allowing illegal immigration increased the economic disparity of such concern here?
Is it possible that welfare has contributed to the social problems we have today?
Teen pregnancy rates, single parent families, lower education levels & graduation rates, and on and on?
Here is another concept, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Do the efforts to increase the welfare system fall into that definition?
September 13th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Haha! And yet you, Bob, will support McCain-Palin this November with your vote.
As I said above, your words speak plain and loud!
September 13th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Albert,
Care to address the questions instead of trying to divert the issue again?
September 13th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Bob:
You have proposed nothing by way of a solution to the problem you suggest exists. How about you propose something of substance to respond, rather than merely positing rhetorical statements and questions?
September 13th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Albert,
I have on numerous occasions posted solutions. Since those seem to slip your memory, I’ll list a few.
1. Education reform- Break up public school systems, or at a minimum get the federal government out. Remove all the requirements of what is supposed to be taught, when where and how. Have an exit exam that all students must pass. If they pass it at any time, they are a high school graduate.
2. Medical Insurance - Remove the tax incentives for companies to provide insurance and increase opportunities for other organizations; clubs, unions, neighborhood groups, schools, etc to offer insure. Increase the ease of portability so that people can maintain insurance while changing jobs. This would reduce the need to stay in a poor paying job, increasing the opportunity to increase wages.
3. Drug and device reform - Abolish the FDA approval process and institute a 3rd party approval process with financial liability. Other agencies can do a better, faster, safer job of approving new drugs and devices.
4. Immigration reform - SEAL THE BORDERS, SEAL THE BORDERS, control illegal immigration. Any illegal immigrate caught, especially committed violent crimes, should be jailed and at the end of the term sent back to their country of origin. Increase the number of legal immigrants, fast track the approval process, increase the education requirements (remember that point I showed earlier about illegal immigration lowering wages).
5. Reduce the government. Control the expansion and institute measures to remove duplicate, obsolete and inefficient agencies.
6. Reduce the tax burden. Keep more money in people’s pockets so they can spend it or invest it as they choose. This is possible in conjunction with reducing the government.
7. Create/modify tax incentives for individuals, groups, and organizations to help the needy. This takes up the slack from the welfare reform. It also makes it easier for those who are worried about economic disparity or income inequality to do something about it personally.
8. Remove/ease restrictions on firearms. Allow people to defend themselves, to protect themselves, their families, their neighborhoods. Allowing people to stop criminals reduces the need to depend on local, state, county, and federal law enforcement for protection, again saving money. (Didn’t think I would leave out that one, did you?)
9. Reform how legislative districts are drawn. Make it easier to elect officials that will implement better policies and throw out the other rascals.
Hmm, those are just the ones off the top of my head, is that sufficient?
Now, you do the same. What are your solutions?
September 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Bob:
This gives us a great place to start, but several days will be needed to give your proposed solutions the discussion they deserve. For now, however, let’s just focus on point #6:
6. Reduce the tax burden. Keep more money in people’s pockets so they can spend it or invest it as they choose. This is possible in conjunction with reducing the government.
This is what McCain’s chief economic advisor has to say on this subject.
So help me, Bob. Help me understand how your candidate’s own advisor can be against what you propose, yet you want me to vote for your candidate - McSame - because of what you propose.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Albert,
There are a couple of simple concepts that I will try to explain.
1. I don’t have to agree with every position that a politician has to vote for that person.
2. I may not be right on every subject. I’m willing to admit it, are you? Reducing the tax burden is my opinion.
3. As I have repeatedly stated, I’m not so much in favor of McCain as opposed to Obama. Neither are the candidate that I would prefer to vote for. I saw a great cartoon that explains the election
McCain - NATIONAL socialism
Obama - national SOCIALISM
Not much difference between the two candidates in reality, I just think that voting for McCain will keep the process going as slowly as possible. We can’t change the direction of the nation overnight, it didn’t get in it’s current condition overnight, solving it will take a while. It’s about incremental changes, I think that about sums up my viewpoint.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Bob S:
Since the charity you would donate to is secret, I can’t determine how it would go about helping the poor and I surely wouldn’t want YOU to be in charge of helping me; my knees hurt too much as it is.
Privatizing social safety nets, (that terminology drives you crazy, doesn’t it?), sounds like a very poor idea, but I’ll agree that the government welfare system has been far from perfect in the past. People on it, were making barely enough to take care of their families and were encouraged by the system to increase the size of their families to receive more money, knowing they would receive LESS money if they worked. That is a crazy way to run things; as crazy as organized religion continuing to promote larger families in this age of diminishing resources. I’ve always wondered if the two were connected in some way. Russia used to give great praise to women who had huge families and we always get barraged with those wonderful quintuplet stories here.
Individuals or corporations almost never reject free money and I just happen to have Fannie May, Freddie Mac and lots of tax evading billionaires to make my point. If you are going to demonize welfare recipients as being on the dole, you are going to have to acknowledge the business side of things also. There has never been a single case of a welfare recipient wallowing in money. That is not the case with the giant corporations that happily accept THEIR welfare money.
I’ve, personally , never had to ask for welfare and I’m very grateful for that, but if something terrible happens, I hope a social safety net is there to help me while I struggle to be an asset to my community in some other way, if that’s even possible.
You want to privatize everything, thinking that people like yourself are going to set aside their pursuit of money to help the poor or rebuild the infrastructure Bush has let decay or set up a heath care system that people can afford. You can’t be serious! Sadly, since republicans have been in charge of government for the last few years, it’s ability to function in any capacity has been purposefully dismantled so they could say “We told you.” We are a laughing stock!
Vote McCain - do the same thing over and over expecting a different result - Albert turned that one around on you, didn’t he?
September 14th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Larry,
Why are so many people on this board hung up on full disclosure for the opposition but not for themselves. Glenden, for example, wouldn’t admit whether or not he is living the beliefs he claims but I’m supposed to admit which charity I would give money to in a hypothetical scenario. That doesn’t make any sense.
You asked about a very narrowly tailored scenario and I answered.
I’m glad you recognize that making the safety nets a federal socialism program hasn’t worked. Privatizing is a word I don’t mind at all, do you like socialism? Turning the country toward socialism hasn’t worked and probably isn’t going to work.
Everyone holds up all the European countries as role model but let’s look at the fact that people vote with their feet, eh?
Is immigration into or out of America increasing or decreasing our population?
I believe that we are taking more people into the country then are exiting.
Regarding the socialistic countries in Europe, Does out exit immigration to those countries out number those coming in?
Don’t have the numbers, but I sure haven’t seen any reports of massive number of people leaving the country, have you?
As far as turning around the insanity definition on me, Read what I wrote above. Geesh, it’s like people don’t retain what they see. I don’t want to vote for McCain, I will because he is a better choice, not by any large majority, but a better choice then Obama.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Glenden is one man. If he gave every penny he had away, it wouldn’t make any difference. The government is the way to go if you want to bring real relief to the needy; that’s why the giant corporations do everything they can to control the government, (AND DO!) They even claim citizenship and claim civil rights to rake in the gluttonous profits. Unlike Glenden, they make BIG monetary returns for their paid lobbyist’s efforts.
The worst form of socialism would be better then what McCain’s handlers have in store for us. It’s what our country was founded against. Please wake up!
September 15th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Larry,
If I advocated that everyone give up their car and walk everywhere, wouldn’t you want to see if I was doing that before following my example?
Glenden wrote that higher taxes would reduce economic disparity. I challenged him to find out if he is voluntarily doing his part by giving up more money. One person can set the example for others to follow, right?
Glenden refused to answer
I argued with someone on this site that government subsidies of businesses were wrong and that person agreed (was it you?). How is government subsidies of people any different?
I strongly disagree with your sentiment about the worst form of socialism being better then what McCain has in store but of course most politicians today are advocating some form of socialism.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Bob - you’re like a dog with a bone! I told you why I was ignoring your question and since you responded I haven’t had time to reply.
I listed the things I do - i.e. setting an example - at Crossroads. So, yes, I know it won’t make you feel any better, but I do donate to charities to help the less fortunate. But, the more I”ve worked with those charities, the clearer it has become that our current system in the US is incapable of granting the working poor a life of dignity, let alone those who cannot work.
History is on my side in this argument. Raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and investing that government revenue in wise ways, produces a correspodning increase in the quality of life for a very broad portion of the population. The idea that you are being taxed for no purpose is a conservative conceit, a fever dream fear unfounded in reality. Your list of proposed reforms is surprisingly stunted. For instance, the government reform you call for has already happened in most of the civilian agencies - it was called RIGO and Al Gore managed it. The biggest source of waste in the US government is the military and its associated no-bid contractors in Iraq. Your medical insurance reform proposal is like the Clinton plan from 1993 - only less well-thought out. The Clinton plan (FWIW) was a good start but overly complex - why create a complex system when you can create a simple one - i.e. single payer? Your proposal for dissolving the FDA is sheer lunacy; we need to make some reforms in FDA procedures but making it easier to get untested drugs to consumers isn’t a good idea. Your idea about “reducing” the government is just darn right cute. The problem isn’t the size of the government - it is the effectiveness of the government. We currently have a large, ineffective government courtesy of Dubya and the other Banana Republicans. Same with taxes - taxes are investment in the common good - things like excellent public schools, safe roads and drinking water, creating a social safety net that benefits us all. Private charities are good things but they are not and have never been sufficient to meet the needs of our society. How many times do we have to learn that lesson before we figure it out?
September 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Glenden,
First, my reply was to Larry and I was not pushing you for an answer. I considered it part and parcel of answering his issue of only one person.
The question isn’t if you donate to charities, but how much you believe in removing the “economic disparity” and what steps are you willing to take before you force me to support your ideals. I have refrained from asking in anything but the most general terms for a reason. Your money is your business.
If I advocated firearm disarmament policies like some people on this board do, wouldn’t you expect me to have no firearms in my house?
It is the same situation here, I am pointing out that NOTHING stops you from giving away vast quantities (or if you are like me, not so vast quantities) of personal income.
You advocate progressive taxes on the wealthy, which gets defined down further each year, so are you achieving any level of income redistribution that you are advocating for others, a simple yes or no would suffice.
First,
Please show where I’ve ever stated that I’m being taxed for no reason. My objection is to the income redistribution schemes advocated because some people believe that somebody is earning more money then someone else.
Taxes are paid for many reasons, reasons that I have repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly (doesn’t anyone on the opposing philosophical side pay attention to what is written) confirmed as valid; defense, infrastructure, utilities, etc.
The Preamble addresses “promote the general Welfare” as a reason. Not the individual welfare or insuring that everyone’s welfare is the same as everyone else. Some people are going to be able to produce more, earn more, invest more, inherit more, money then others. It not unfair, it a fact of life and nothing we do can change that.
So let’s get into your comments
Raising taxes on corporations — corporations don’t pay taxes. What is hard to understand about this? The people using the corporates services or buying the products pay the taxes. So raising taxes is often counterproductive unless you single out “luxury goods” for increased taxes. Let’s say this again for everyone that may not have caught it….corporations do not pay taxes, people pay taxes. Corporates send a part of the money they collect for their goods and services to the government as taxes. If you increase taxes, does anything think that corporations are going to say “we’ve been charging too much, let’s lower our profit margin”?
And if they do, what happens to the millions of people who own corporate stock through their 401(k)s, IRAs, stock purchases– seems to me, those people, the working class mostly, make less money.
So, how does raising taxes on corporations help again?
Taxing the wealthy even more…Why because they are able to play the game better? Because of wealth envy, they have it and you and I don’t and we don’t like it, it’s so unfair, they need to pay their fair share? (sorry liberal rant/whine over)
First can we get a definition of wealthy that last more then one election?
Second, if the wealthy have less money, who is going to lend it out, who is going to invest in small companies though stock purchases or act as investors in small companies?
How about the fact that the wealthy already pay a huge portion of the taxes in the country already? 43 million people don’t pay income taxes –32 % of the population.
Sound like the wealthy are already paying taxes above and beyond.
What is a fair level of taxes they should pay?
You never answered what is an equitable income level? That is what progressive taxation is, someone determining what some else should be able to keep. So, what level is fair to you?
Next:
UH, because I don’t trust the government for reason number 1. For the fact the government is often the most inefficient agency around for number 2 (how many people here complained that the government response to Katrina or any number of other natural disasters was too slow?, raise your hands, don’t be shy!)
Reason number 3, once the government becomes the payor, they also start deciding what to cover and how much. See England and their health care plan regarding obesity for an example.
Moving on:
This may be a case of misunderstanding. I never said that untested drugs should be allowed to reach the market. I said to remove the inefficient, slow and bloated bureaucracy of the FDA from the mix. Allow 3rd party companies, with financial liability, to certify the research, test and product safety of new drugs and devices.
It is about the size of the government, it is also about the reach of the government.
It is about the size of the government and the reach of the government.
Has the war on poverty removed poverty from our country?
Another post has links and comments about how welfare has affected our country. Affect the disintegration of the family, affected teen pregnancies, created generations of people on welfare…..how will increasing welfare reverse those trends?
September 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I’m coming way late to this discussion, but I want to address Bob’s question about who won the war on poverty. I know the boilerplate Republican talking points here, because I used to believe them myself.
Matt Yglesias has a good answer (if you go to the link you’ll see an eye-opening graph of poverty in America).
September 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
…then, in under 12 years, povety numbers went way up! The money needed to run ‘Operation Kill Nicaraguan’s and other Ccentral Americans’, needed to come from somewhere. No?
September 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Bob - Let’s just tackle your distrust of government. That the mismanagement of government under George W. Bush resulted in the government repsonding terribly to Katrina isn’t a condemnation of government in general - it is a clear condemnation of government run by cronies, pals and friends of those in elected office. Bush isn’t just a terrible president because he’s launched war based on lies, attacked civil liberties and managed to ruin our reputation world wide- he’s a terrible president because he’s failed to run government well. Under Clinton, FEMA was a model agency. Under Bush, absorbed in the Homeland Security Borg, run by a man who knew nothing about emergency preparedness, underfunded and ignored, it utterly failed. That’s no surprise.
Government can and should run efficiently. Efficiently isn’t the same as miserly or hard-hearted. The New Deal, for instance, was characterized by an almost complete lack of graft and corruption.
Consider, for historical comparisons: from the 40s to the 60s, the top marginal tax rate in the US was 90%. From the 60s to the 80s, it was 70%. Beginning in the 80s, we began to see increases in poverty and government programs being cut and underfunded. Throughout the post war boom, tax rates for everyone were far higher, tax revenues were invested in education and infrastructure improvements (including the fact that college educations were practically free for many middle class kids).
(more later)
September 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Richard,
I never asked who won the War on Poverty. I asked have we removed it from our country.
We’ve spent 3.5 TRILLION dollars or more on the “War on Poverty”. As people ask, if we spend that much money on war, shouldn’t we see results?
I would expect a reduction in the number of poor seeing how we’ve continued to expand the amount of assistance and the types of assistance given
Keep taking more and more money out of the pockets that earn more and give it to those that earn less, reduce their taxes and of course, we reduce the number of poor.
So, why are people poor and why do they stay poor:
.
Or
What does the average poor person have for material goods?
So, to anyone….what level of income is acceptable for the “poor”?
What level of income is “too much” for the wealthy to make?
Shouldn’t we be addressing issues as education - the broken public school system, families - encouraging two parent families - something that welfare has been repeatedly shown NOT to do– before we start talking about taking even more money from the rest of the people?
September 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The point I was making, by citing Yglesias: the Great Society worked to dramatically reduce poverty. In fact, programs such as Medicare continue to keep the poverty rate down despite Republican policies that have increased the number of poor people. Here’s the graph: