> And society will continue its weird dance between social permissiveness and
> religious conservativism. Abortion and gay marriage will remain the
> dealbreakers and vote-drivers.
>
> . . .
>
> So, in short, are Americans becoming more politically liberal? Only in terms of
> health care and environmentalism. But we are becoming more socially liberal.
No, we’re also becoming more liberal in terms of sexual behavior acceptance issues and in terms of civil rights issues, as in the things I mentioned in my two posts. And in those issues, the change is so large that people hardly notice it anymore. As I said, the change has resulted in the line between liberal and conservative moving, so the acceptance of these issues is no longer the divide between liberals and conservatives.
You seem to forget that gay marriage wasn’t even on the table forty years ago, and twenty years ago was considered a very fringe issue. Now it’s seriously fought over and accepted in a few places. If I were to guess, it’s going to become slowly more acceptable - and I do mean slowly. It will take many decades to be completely accepted.
Abortion seems to be in stasis, with strong feeling both for and against, just as it was before the Supreme Court decision of 1973. Still, compared with forty years ago, when it was legal in only a few states, it’s moved on. And it’s now been legal everywhere for over thirty years. (And note that it’s the issue, not birth control, which doesn’t even get argued about much anymore, unlike forty years ago.)
Enlilghten, then, dear Sarah. Expand upon this notion of taxation as theft, devestate with your cool analysis and command of the facts. Is all taxation theft? Or only that which comforts the unworthy? When General Dynamics feasts at the public trough for weapons like the Whizbang Godalmighty (version 2.0, 1.0 still has nasty “crash and explode” issues…) are they thieves, or noble protectors of the commonwealth?
Admitedly, the notion of eliminating all taxation is a bit…well, out of the mainstream. Won’t bother me any, been out of the mainstream most all of my life, couldn’t find it with a map. What is your program to lift this dreadful curse from the backs of the people?
No, of course not. As you may be aware from past threads, I’m not against taxation, and I’m not against programs to help the needy. I’m maybe discouraged with the way some of them are run, but that’s another issue. My ONLY point was that if you are going to complain about the “tyranny of the majority” in some contexts, then you’d better be careful when cavalierly dismissing it as an argument in other contexts, that’s all.
As I alluded to above, I might advocate changing the way programs are run so as to avoid unneccessary taxation. But no need to hijack this thread any further into that…I’d hardly think most people would argue with that premise, anyhow.
Where the heck did that come from? When has she ever advocated such a thing? Incidentally, taxation is conscription. There are no volunteers. (Yes, I know you’d gladly volunteer to pay your taxes so someone out of sight and mind can deal with people’s problems, but you don’t get that opportunity.)
Actually, Liberal is right, I never said anything that you ascribed to me. The truth is, we got way far afield from what Sam Stone said. What he said was that we want to avoid a situation where a large percentage of the population pays little or no tax at all. You can make an argument that people who can pay more should pay more, and not advocate that most of the population pays nothing at all. This is the “dangerous” thing that Sam Stone was talking about…the risk that the majority of the people would be making the decisions about how taxes are to be spent, without having any financial interest in the decision at all. It is very easy to spend someone else’s money. That’s why eveyone should be taxed to some extent…to keep it real, so to speak. The “tyranny of the majority” comes in when the money is being spent by one set of people, and being provided by another set of people.
Is it just a “feel-good policy” for the folks making minimum wage, or close to it? Not everyone makes the “average starting wage”, you know.
I think that’s a valid point, but in my opinion we have what’s closer to the opposite situation, where the tax burden (measured in actual impact on taxpayers lives) falls much more heavily on the poor and middle class than on the rich. Income tax is already effectively regressive at least at the upper end of the scale (with billionaires paying the same percent in federal income tax as a couple making $400,000 a year), and you also have to factor in the fact that sales tax falls especially heavily on the poor (where a higher percentage of their income goes to buying food and other essentials), and property tax falls especially heavily on the middle class (who generally have a greater percentage of their wealth invested in their home).
There’s another sense in which I’d say we have the opposite problem. You express concern that people with a low tax burden don’t have enough of a disincentive against supporting government programs. I’d argue that the wealthy don’t have enough of an incentive to support government programs. If you’re sufficiently rich, you don’t really need much in the way of government services. Other than compassion, what motive does a rich person have for supporting programs that benefit the poor if they cost him anything at all. You might argue that it doesn’t matter if the ultra-rich don’t care about the poor, since they’re a small minority, but that wealth also gives them a disproportionate ability to influence the legislature by means of donations and lobbying.
And if there is a problem with “tyranny of the majority” in this country, I’d say it’s much more that the majority aren’t willing to take the necessary financial hit to bring the lives of the very poorest Americans up to a decent standard, rather than that the very richest Americans are stuck with such a disproportionate tax burden that they can’t afford a third mansion.
(I’m sorry if it seems I’m misrepresenting Sam Stone’s viewpoint. I’m only partially responding to him and partially just stating my opinion in general.)
Sam’s point is good, Sarah’s illustration of it is better, but both miss the fundamental fact, and that is the derivation of wealth. You both take if from the point of possession, how unjust it is to take what belongs to someone. But where did he get it in the first place?
As I said in another context, this is our country, sea to shining sea, amber wave, purple mountains, the whole shebang…ours. If a man derives his wealth from our country, he derives his wealth from us. It is ours, he has it on loan.
Well, I would, but you make my point so well, it seems silly. But I quite take your point! How best might we remedy this injustice?
You would like to compare the history of governments being run by socialists vs governments being run by people who support capitalism? If you want to go there, let’s have at it.
In my family, we call that a ‘savings account’. I know, it’s a hard concept to grasp when you see government as the answer to everything.
You want the government to provide for all hardship, for retirement, for temporary income loss - and then people wonder why the savings rate is so low.
We also have unemployment insurance, which we pay into. Here in Canada, I pay about $1700 a year for unemployment insurance directly off my paycheck. The government makes the employer match it, which reduces my salary by an equal amount. So I’m really paying $3500/yr in unemployment insurance. I’ve been in the workforce for almost 30 years, and I’ve never collected on it. I have been unemployed several times, but never for long enough that I needed to apply for UI.
So long as the unemployment insurance system as a whole is paying out less or equal to what it’s taking in, there’s no real wealth distribution going on, except for the people on the low end of the scale who don’t have to pay in but can still claim the benefits.
What else do you want?
So… Supporting people indefinitely who don’t work is not ‘welfare’, it’s just ‘making capitalism work’. You should go work as a spin meister for one of the campaigns. You’re good at it.
From cradle to grave. Government as societal mommy, there to pick us up when we skin our knees, shelter us from bad choices, and ensure that no matter how stupid we are, how lazy we are, or how many bad choices we make, we can’t really be hurt by it. Made uncomfortable, maybe. Lose a few toys perhaps. But ultimately, the safety net is there to catch us.
That’s not ‘making capitalism work’. That’s subverting an important part of freedom for the sake of safety and comfort.
I don’t want to see people actually freezing and starving to death in rich countries. I think we can avoid that. To borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton - government social support should be available - and rare. Being on the government tit should *hurt. It should be the last thing you want, and the first thing you want to get off of. It’s there to prevent you from dying or falling so far out of society that you can’t get back.
Somehow, that’s not what I think you have in mind.
I actually don’t know of any Republicans, and almost no Libertarians, who would advocate letting truly disabled people starve to death. I don’t see a lot of opposition to services for the blind, the crippled, or the mentally challenged. And those people consume a very tiny portion of the government budget. Miniscule. So it’s pretty much a strawman argument.
What Republicans object to is sheltering able-bodied, potentially productive people from the consequences of making bad choices. That leads to more bad choices.
Post #91, username Sarahfeena. I put it to you, madam, that you are the aforementioned Sarahfeena! Do you deny it? Are you now, or ever have been, Sarahfeena a.k.a. The Scarlet Pumpernickle?