This started as a reply to a comment from Barry B., but grew so long, I decided to make it a post.
I missed the part where I called you a liar and a thief, Barry. In fact, a careful reading of the post reveals that I did no such thing. Instead, I said that liberals have been taken in by a lie, and proceeded to illustrate it.
If you honestly believe that gov't exists to ensure that all our needs are met, then you are not a liar, even though the premise itself is false. If you honestly believe that it is okay to confiscate and redistribute the wealth of those who create it, then you are not a thief, even though it is theft of property.
Barry says:
I missed the part where I was not only a liar but a THIEF because I am a liberal who has paid into Social Security and Medicare and taxes for education all my life and I think I am entitled to have my SS payments and medicare payments in my retirement.
You believe you are entitled to get out of the system what you put in, and more if needed. Shouldn't the wealthy citizen expect the same: to get out of the system at least what he put in? But our system guarantees that he won't, since he's carrying the load for those who want to get out more than they put in. If you were told that you had to pay 10, 20, or 30 times the amount you could ever hope to get back from the system, would you do so willingly, in order to ensure that those who didn't contribute their share would be taken care of? Are you doing so now?
That's what you're asking of the wealthy.
And I don't buy the argument that it's OK because "They don't need it." Need is irrelevant. Property should never be taken simply because "they don't need it." It was earned, or created by these people; it belongs to them, not you or me. If ownership is based solely on need, then personal property rights are a thing of the past.
Barry asks:
Does Rich want to return to the days of the Robber Barrons and child labor?
By your argument, adopting liberal labor laws has increased the wealth of the owners/managers. Is it reasonable to suggest that if those laws were removed, those same owner/managers would return to a less efficient, less profitable business model?
I don't think so.
Barry asks:
Does Rich want to end the public school system?
Our public school systems have become a national disgrace. Yes, an educated work force is a boon to business, but are our public schools getting the job done? The resounding answer from both businesses and colleges is "No, they aren't."
Perhaps it's time to consider a new model.
Barry says:
If the government decides that as part of medicare we can afford a drug program yes [prescription drugs are a right] and it appears that the Republican Conservatives have decided it is a good idea.
It's only a right if we can afford it?
Here is a wonderful demonstration of the liberal fallacy in action. True rights exist whether we can afford them or not. A 'right' that only exists if we can afford it is by definition a privilege. A prescription drug plan is not a right, but a privilege of living in a wealthy society.
And that applies to everything we've talked about. I agree, all of these things are good to have. A good education, medical care, a welfare safety net, prescription drugs. I'm not against any of them.
BUT THEY AREN'T RIGHTS!
They are the benefits of living in a wealthy society where initiative, innovation, and hard work are rewarded. If we can afford them, then by all means, let's have them. But when an average guy is already paying over 37% of his income in taxes, I seriously question whether we can afford it.
Barry says:
Liberals think government can improve the entire state, country and community by collectively spending more of the wealth of the country taken in taxes and that typically they can increase the wealth of the wealthy so they benefit more even with the larger tax bite.
So liberals really want the wealthy to become more wealthy?
Paging Mr. Orwell, Mr. George Orwell. Double speak in progress...
If the goal of liberal policy is to increase the wealth of the wealthy, then why all the class warfare rhetoric? I also note the nationalization of wealth ("by collectively spending more of the wealth of the country"), a common liberal conceit. I hate to break it to you, but the wealth belongs to the people, not the country, not the gov't. The gov't levies taxes, and the people control the gov't. Should taxes grow too burdensome, the people act to do something about it, like elect fiscal conservatives. But then, we know how you feel about the people
Einstein is credited with the following gem of wisdom: “Only two things in my experience are infinite: 1) is the Universe 2) is human stupidity. And sometimes I am not sure about the universe.” P T. Barnam once opined that “ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public.
Careful there, your elitism is showing.
Barry says:
98% of the wealth in this country is controlled by a very small percentage of the people. That wealth is what is primarily protected by the more than 50% of every tax dollar we pay. This includes Veteran’s entitlements like VA care and payments to wounded soldiers, the Homeland Security department, and the Billions we just spent in Iraq.
Why should those Americans with so very little to lose pay disproportionate amounts of their income to protect the wealth of the very wealthy?
Nobody has asked them to. Just as you point out that a majority of the wealth is controlled by a minority of the people, so too are the majority of taxes paid by that same minority. And I'd love to see figures on any 'disproportionate' amounts, either in dollars or percentages. Even the 'horrible' sales tax takes a larger bite from the wealthy than the poor, because the wealthy spend more.
Barry says:
The entitlements you mentioned are paid for by those entitled to them.
Simply not true. Families on welfare by definition aren't paying taxes. The average senior today will draw far more out of Social Security and Medicare than he ever paid in. It's simple logic; if they were able to pay in what they took out, they wouldn't need the assistance in the first place. If those who needed assistance most were able to pay for that assistance, the wealthy would not be in a 250% higher tax bracket (37%) than the majority of Americans(15%). The undeniable fact is that our liberal social policies are only made possible by placing the lion's share of the burden on the backs of the wealthy.
Rich,
Since you intend to post a response to my comments you should do me the same courtesy as I offer you by responding to your arguments one at a time.
If you insist on pulling comments out of context label them what they are. Quotes from Einstein and Barnam not my words in answer to a request for explanations.
Social Security and Medicare provide some people with more than they paid in. All insurances plans public or private do that. The payments are not dramatically greater for the wealthy. Plenty of people die before they have a chance to withdraw a dime from social security.
AND you of couse fail to answer why I should have to pay an exhorbitant amount of my paycheck to protect the wealth concentrated in the top 5% of the country. The war in Iraq benefits Halliburton, Bechtel, World Com, and other wealthy corporations but they are not paying for it. A person in a 15% tax bracket gets marginally less out of the defense and homeland security budgets because he/she has a great deal less to protect.
The SSi and medicare payroll payments are not so different for the "wealthy" or the "rest of us" of course the "wealthy" who "own" America are not like the "rest of us" who simply rent from the "wealthy". Ownership and equity are the elements of wealth not payroll.
When a corporate executive has his payscale set at 1 million dollars a year the tax rate is taken into consideration.
When a wage slave at Wal-mart is given a pay scale the "compensation" includes consideration of tax rate, benefits, and SSI 401K Medicare and health insurance. Since only 6.5% of us are unemployed and so few of those live beyond 60 years of age we are talking real peanuts here.
Welfare dropped by 2 million during the Clinton .................
You know Rich fuck this I really don't give a shit about your fallacious argument or your reply to my comments.
Your post indicates a total lack of awareness about how money and power work in this country and I do not have the time or the inclination to explain it to you.
Yeah Rich people are stupid and I love most of them just the same but that doesn't make them any smarter. Many people who are stupid believe like you (who is not stupid) that their problems are caused by the welfare recipients who are stealing their hard earned money for their entitlements. They believe that it is the educational system that is a miserable failure. They believe the wealthy are wealthy because they work harder. They believe the wealthy scratch and claw for every dime they get. They believe there is no corporate welfare and that Halliburton and Bechtel deserve to make billions of our tax dollars in Iraq.
That is just fine Rich. You go on believing it because I know I cannot make you see the truth no matter what I say about it.
The SSI and Medicare contracts with Americans have great utility for the wealthy because the stocks and businesses they own benefit by not having to fully fund pension plans and health insurance. But you believe this is all about some right that people think they have.
You donned the uniform of this country and went to Sea. You have certain entitlements for doing that. People don Wal mart uniforms and go to work all over America and part of that contract and decision has to do with SSI, education for their children, and medicare with or without a prescription cost. This country has resources and makes decisions on how to allocate those resources. The American model has been quite successful since we are the most powerful nation in the world because of that model. You could move to Brazil or Mexico or some other places (Spain) where the poverty is greater for the masses and the rich are proportionally richer with lower taxes. Or I could move to Sweden Switzerland or the Netherlands where there is almost no poverty but the wealthy are taxed more heavily. There is no question about how those different systems work.
Just remember that here the masses are heavily armed - unlike Brazil or Mexico. And every time the plight of the marginal poor gets worse the rate of crime and violence increases.
What price are we willing to pay to keep the bottom from falling out Rich?
I dont expect a considered response.
"Put simply, modern liberalism is based on a lie which is propped up by theft."
Put simply modern conservatism is a myth based on a fantasy. As the wealth shareholders of the Clinton era will attest - given a 38% tax rate on income their gains in shareholder value and equity in property far exceeded the Bush years.
The marginal decrease in the tax rate does not begin to make up for it.
But let us live in the Land of Rich Hailey where minimum wage, social security, medicare, and education cease to be funded by the wealthy and the priviledged. I want to see how Rich likes it.
My bet is that the gap between the rich and poor widens dramatically. That there will be more and more prisons or more and more Bronx. I bet the homeless increase and the smell of urine in the streets becomes insufferable. I predict that death and disease increase possibly to epidemic proportions. I predict that the use of the Army on American soil to control Americans becomes necessary as armed militants with bombs become domestic terrorists. America has been bought off by far too little in my opinion. Social Security and Medicare are pathetic, as Rich says the education system is sketchy at best, and wages require that two work from most families.
But what the hell Rich lets end all of that and see if we can still grow the economy when nobody can afford to buy anything.
America is a big corporation Rich.
Conservatives represent the wealthy ownership and management.
Independents and libertarians represent the independent contractors and consultants
Liberals represent the workers, the educators, their lawyers, and care givers. (except the Doctors)
It is like the battle between management and labor in every corporation. The management wants to employ as few workers as necessary and pay them as little as possible with as few benefits as they can get away with.
Labor wants management and ownership to share a greated percentage of the profits.
Politics is collective bargaining.
People are "stupid" when they view this game any way other than their own self-interest.
If you make more than $140,000 a year you are management. If you make between 80 and 140,000 you could be either. If you make under 40K you are labor. Between 40 and 60 you might expect to grow into management.
The higher tax rates on those making 200,000 or more benefit those who don't make that much. My annual take for 99, 2000 and 01 was right at 200K.
02 it was off by half and this year is a disaster.
But I was a liberal in 98 and I am a liberal today because I believe the American corporation is better with less disparity between the ownership and the workers. Because I know what I want my corporation to look like.
I can see what you want it to look like too Rich.
That is where we disagree.
Who is the thief Rich? The "ultrarich" Halliburton's and Cheneys or the guy who gets a few more pathetic bucks from SSI or Medicare than he put in? Who steals the most Rich Ken Lay at Enron or the workers who lost 63 billion in 401K value? Who are the robber barons Rich? Adelphia and World Com or granny with a lower cost perscription?
You are correct Rich this is class war.
The difference is I know which class I am in.
Like money in the bank
we find that George W Bush, the pilot hero of USS Abraham Lincoln, who packs more penis into a flightsuit by 6am than you'll pack in a day, is fighting to keep our precious taxdollars out the hands of the parasitic widows and orphans of US soldiers who have died defending our equally precious freedoms.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Why look. He saved us $6000 just today. With two hundred soldiers dead in Iraq so far, this is adding up to some serious money.
Posted by: Barry Bozeman on June 30, 2003 3:14 AMBarry, if you believe I pulled a quote out of context, you are welcome to place it in its proper context. I challenge you to place the Einstein and Barnum quotes, used by you to explain the success of the conservative agenda/talk radio, in any context which is not elitist. All I'm doing is taking you at your word.
As for how I address your argument, the post pulled your arguments from one comment, and placed them in the body of a new post for easier reading. The arguments were addressed in the order presented. I think the format is fine.
Now to business:
You say:
Social Security and Medicare provide some people with more than they paid in. All insurances plans public or private do that.
The difference of course being that insurance plans are voluntary. You have the choice of insuring, or handling the risk with your own resources. The problem comes when the insurance is made mandatory.
You say:
AND you of couse fail to answer why I should have to pay an exhorbitant amount of my paycheck to protect the wealth concentrated in the top 5% of the country.
While you fail to demonstrate what amount you consider to be exhorbitant. What percentage of your $200k is too high? What percentage of my $52K is too high?
You say:
This country has resources and makes decisions on how to allocate those resources. The American model has been quite successful since we are the most powerful nation in the world because of that model.
It certainly has, and the model that has worked so well, that produced the great wealth, that lifted even our poorest people head and shoulders above most people anywhere else in the world, has been capitalism, with limited government regulation, coupled with minimal taxation, allowing people to create wealth on their own initiative. Why tamper with a system which has worked so well by adding heavier burdens to those who are producing the wealth?
You say: Just remember that here the masses are heavily armed - unlike Brazil or Mexico. And every time the plight of the marginal poor gets worse the rate of crime and violence increases.
Once again, where are the numbers? Are the poor getting poorer? Last time I checked, while the gap between the rich and poor widened during the Reagan era, it wasn't because the poor got poorer. In fact, they made impressive gains in standard of living and income, a trend which continued into the Clinton era. The gap widened because a large portion of the middle class became wealthy. In short, the rising tide lifted all the boats.
You say:
Who is the thief Rich? The "ultrarich" Halliburton's and Cheneys or the guy who gets a few more pathetic bucks from SSI or Medicare than he put in?
I never said that Medicare recipients are thieves. What I said was that the only way that liberal social programs can survive is by taking wealth from the people who created it, which I consider as theft.
Posted by: rich on June 30, 2003 12:26 PMI have enjoyed this exchange of ideals. The topics are hot for me but I don’t expect to fine answers to them on obscure web logs, but you never know! If I were giving points I would have to score Rich the win. Barry seems to have gone off on some rambling rampage talking about guns and chaos with veiled threats facts be dammed. (A web log does seem to be a good place to find a violent radical though).
The rich protect themselves and I benefit.
America is still a place where the poor can get rich (Although Barry sees it in terms of who is who’s boss. Power issues?).
Our public education system does suck and throwing more money at it doesn’t seem to be the answer. They just hire more bureaucrats with the money and the teachers still need a raise. Lets try some old ideals for a change, education not social experimentation.
Entitlements, I have known people who made a living on government entitlement programs. I agree a privilege not a right and one that needs some sort of accountability.
Yes I guess I’m one of the stupid ones Barry. One of the ones with so little to lose (is this supposed to be a spin?) and I don’t need your love. What I do need is for government to get out of my way and let me make decisions for me. I am in the leading edge of the baby boomers and I hope my SS will be tact when I need it. I’m not forgetting that the Democrats were the ones who put SS in the general fund. Some more of the I know what’s best for you stupid but I still love you.
(Just discovered this site and am browsing around. Don't know if anyone will care about my comments.)
I absolutely loved how Barry decided to stop responding with actual arguments to Rich in the very middle of his post and go off into a totally irrational and unfounded prediction of death and destruction, like some kind of religious prophet predicting doomsday if the world continues towards sin and vice.
This is a consistent liberal problem: they are unable to back up any of their beliefs with arguments consistently and to the end. Time and again, I see the conservatives getting in the last word (or in this case, the last rational peice of work). This is as opposed to what I would consider a reasonable outcome, which is what it comes down to when I start arguing with my one intelligent liberal real-life friend (this is not a statement on the scarcity of intelligent liberals; rather, more of a statement on the scarcity of intelligent high-school sophomores schooled in politics). We usually get to a point where we reach a fundemental disagreement on principles, and recognize that and agree to disagree; we don't spend time quibbling over details of evidence and we _certainly_ don't descend into lunatic-like rantings.
Let it be clear that I am not in total agreement with Rich on all points; for example, I believe _some_ form of population-spanning education is necessary to insure that a huge class gap is not perpetuated between the educated and uneducated, which would lead to an utterly dysfunctional society. Likewise, I am in agreement with Barry on some points; although I don't see anywhere on the page where Rich mentioned minimum wage, it is certainly a necessary facet of the economy in my view. But the dichotomy of argumentative styles is so striking, and Barry's so appalling, that I just had to comment.
Posted by: Domenic Denicola on August 13, 2003 1:51 PMHi Dominic. Jump right on in. I try to respond to all comments, and since I'm not a major player, I usually have no problem doing so. And for the record, I don't insist that every body agree with me on everything. I am aware that through differing philosophies and values, intelligent people can arive at different conclusions from the same basic set of facts and principles. I enjoy the debate, and trying to see where the other guy is coming from.
Take care
Posted by: rich on August 14, 2003 1:02 AMThe one thing that stuck out from the last comment by "Barry" was the following:
"AND you of couse fail to answer why I should have to pay an exhorbitant amount of my paycheck to protect the wealth concentrated in the top 5% of the country. The war in Iraq benefits Halliburton, Bechtel, World Com, and other wealthy corporations but they are not paying for it. A person in a 15% tax bracket gets marginally less out of the defense and homeland security budgets because he/she has a great deal less to protect."
Rich did quote this. However, not in it's entirely.
The REAL 'liberal' commentary in this paragraph is the last sentence.
Imagine, suggesting that a rich person has more to gain from the military than someone that has less...
Well, I was a Marine. As a Marine I always imagined, when I went to foreign soil that I was performing a duty for ALL Americans, rich and poor - how's this for a 'liberal' buzz word - EQUALLY!
From this, it seems that Barry is engaging in the class warfare rhetoric that Rich mentioned early on.
I agree with JWR - rich wins on points, awarded based on factual commentary rather than the difficult to quantify, emotional responses in which libs typically engage.
Carlos C.
Posted by: Carlos C. on August 24, 2003 12:28 PM