Ok, but surely this is not the case for their many homes, their many cars, their personal planes and things like that. I’m not at all calling for anyone to give up any wealth. Certainly if you have read any of my posts you would not think so. But if it is true that Republican policies help “their rich buddies” because their buddies continue to be rich, then why can we not say the exact same thing about the policies of the Deomcrats?
I’m glad to hear a self confessed left wing nutjob say this.
Well, investing is an odd term to apply to humanitarian aid groups. And unless you are allowing that the investor can own and thus sell the results of said research, I’m not sure investing applies to that either. If you meant giving money to non profit aid or research groups, then we are back at the begining. It seems little different than what I suggested before about giving away money.
Well, putting aside the issue of whether or not reversing desertification is techinically feasable, it would be politically infeasable. The reason it has not been done is simply because too many people in that part of the world hold power and do not want to do anything to change this.
I understand. You were saying that investing in unprofitable make works programs. Just kidding. I understand. I think.
Of course I see the range. The real question is where is that range for liberals. If we agree (we don’t, but for the sake of this hijack…) that people should give away as much as they can of their personal fortunes to causes which aid poor and suffering in the world, then the question of where this line is surely comes into play. I think we can agree that a dwelling (or perhaps even 2 for someone who makes his money in more places than one) and some means of personal tranportation are perfectly reasonable. But is multiple homes? Multiple cars per family member? Bank accounts or trust accounts in the range of the hundreds of millions of dollars?
I’m not suggesting that anyone give up any money. I am really trying to get at where this line lies. Is it true that because Kerry supports causes that liberals agree with that liberals are not opposed to him and his family keeping as much personal wealth as they want? It seems that way from out here. But then I do not pretend to understand liberal thinking so I am willing to be wrong.
*NOTE: I am using liberal in the economic sense of being concerned with the wealth disparity between poor and rich in America. I mean no offence. Any which seems to be offered is a result of my own ignorance and I appologize for it.
I have trouble understanding your sarcasm sometimes. Are you saying that it is desirable for people to give away all of their personal wealth but not all at once? Or have you whooshed me?
It seems that it would be wiser to establish a foundation that has well invested capital and uses the earnings to finance their works.
Or that somehow generated wealth through it’s good works.
I don’t follow this. Perhaps we should specify what policies we are talking about. For example, if a wealthy politician says that we should have significant capital gains tax cuts, repeal the estate tax, and lower the top tax rate, all of these things are self-serving. His wealth and power is being used to the benefit of himself and those like him.
If a wealthy person says we should lower the tax rates for the lower and middle classes alone, maintain the estate tax for the wealthy, and keep capital gains taxes as they are, these things do not serve him and those like him (in terms of SES, anyway). He and his buddies will continue to be rich, but less so, and the greater good will be served. In this way you cannot say the exact same thing about the policies of the Republicans and Democrats. (But when could you ever?)
What do you mean, range for liberals? The range is the same. Liberals espouse positions to the right of sainthood, to the left of compassionate conservativism.
Aren’t you confusing charity for governance? I can give everything I have to end suffering, and it won’t make a dent. Or I can encourage everyone to give something, and a marked change will be felt. (Or I can claim to be concerned and say that everyone should give something, and then give nothing myself). Again, you are not clear why there is a different line for different people.
It doesn’t matter if that person has a hundred homes and 10,000 cars. The point is not that they give their own, it is how they work to make the system work for everyone.
Absolutely. Heinz made a goddamn good ketchup. (I don’t know much of anything actually about the Heinz story, except that the factory serves as a landmark on the Northside.) Presuming that it was made and sold fair and square, they don’t need to give it all away to be good people. They should, however, not work to establish policies that shit on the poor and middle class in favor of the rich.
Good, I’m glad it seems that way. I don’t understand the difficulty some appear to have with this.
Oh, I know! It’s so surprising that someone would say such a thing about such a tried-and-true liberal that I fell on the floor, too!
Oh, wait. I just remembered. You are technically correct that she is not a Republican, but she was a registered Republican until just about the time Kerry announced that he was running for President. Also, her first husband, Senator Heinz, was a Republican.
Okay, as the proud new owner of a 2004 Toyota Prius (after a 7 month wait!), I have to respond to this hijack. While there seems to be some truth to the argument that the EPA test may not be designed to give very good readings for the hybrids, tending to overestimate their mpg somewhat more than it does for other cars, the claims in this article are exaggerated. First off, Consumer Reports tends to generally get lower mpg claims than the EPA ones for non-hybrids as well as hybrids. (And, in fact, it has been argued that the EPA test also tends to overestimate what most drivers of both non-hybrid and hybrid vehicles get in the real world.) Second, the May 2004 Consumer Reports reports their overall mpg for the 2004 Prius being 44-mpg, as compared to the 60 city / 51 highway. (I don’t know where that articles got their numbers from.)
Finally, from personal experience, after about 800 miles, my Prius is averaging about 51 mpg around town and about 48 mpg on a long highway trip (mostly at 70-75 mph). I should say that when I drive around town, I have been trying to do my best to drive it efficiently. On the long highway trip however, I didn’t pay much attention to it…And, generally just used the cruise control. [Disclaimers: (1) These numbers are the mpg that it calculates, apparently from keeping track of how long the fuel injectors are on and knowing their output to within ~3%. Since I have only filled up twice (for a total of only like 17 gallons) and the Prius has this strange “bladder” in the fuel tank that makes its capacity more variable than most plus I am not confident how full a tank they sold it to me with, all I can say in regards to independent verification is that it is very roughly in accord with what it calculated. Other owners generally say that the Prius’s internal mpg measurement is reasonably accurate…although it may be biased a few percent high. (2) Based on other owner’s experiences…and again what is also true of conventional cars…I should expect the mpg to drop a bit in winter.]
It should also be noted that the Prius does some things that apparently sacrifice mpg in favor of very clean emissions. It is classified by California standards as an “advanced-technology partial-zero-emissions-vehicle (AT-PZEV)” which means it meets the SULEV standard of 90% less tailpipe emissions of pollutants than the average 2003 model year vehicle plus essentially zero (>98% reduction in) evaporative emissions from the fuel system.
Finally, it is important to note that the Prius is not a particularly small car…In fact I believe it has the wheelbase and total cubic feet of internal space of a Camry, and my biggest adjustment in driving it after driving my 1992 Plymouth Colt is getting used to driving what feels like a considerably bigger car. [The Honda Civic hybrid, and especially the Honda Insight, are smaller than the Prius. However, they are what are called “mild hybrids” that use the electric motor only as a supplement when extra power is needed, rather than being capable of running entirely on the electric motor in some situations as the Prius is. It is likely that the more full hybrid system that Toyota has on the Prius would get higher mileage if applied to cars of their sizes.]
Nop, I say that their policies help their rich buddies because their policies help their rich buddies. If a Democrat started a policy to help his rich buddy, the same could be said about him.
You can invest for something other than profit.
In any case, it is an infintely more efficient form of help than simply giving out money.
I share your pessimism on the issue and situation. However, if they can build an oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to India…
That is not a valid representation of my viewpoint. I never said that anyone had to give away anything.
Kerry can keep as much wealth as he likes. Again, my position is not one that everyone should give up everything they have and live in an ideal communist state (however appealing that may be - as long as his policy backs up what he says, I am happy. Actions can do much more than money.
Hentor the Barbarian I think I may have been unclear. I was not suggesting that the line is or should be different for liberals. I was suggesting that I have not been able to understand where liberals would draw the line concerning how much of a person’s wealth is “up for grabs” so to speak.
However, it seems to me that you are drawing the line differently. If a person espouses higher taxes (for politically correct programs at least) you are happy with thier wealth. If not then not. Is that accurate?
Well, again, I am not claiming that there is a different line. I am questioning why it seems that liberals draw the line differently. I guess I am confused as to why you draw a distinction between charity and governance. It seems to me only logical that if one advocates that the rich should give more to the poor (however you define give to the poor), and if one is also rich, then it is partly hipcritical to keep vast amounts of wealth for one’s personal use.
Statements like this tend to make me think that the liberal ideals are more about taking from others than they are about who should recieve. I don’t mean this to be insulting, I am genuinly trying to understand. If it is irrelevant, morally, that a person keeps large wealth for himself as long as he advocates taking from others, how is this not true? Zagadka Ok, but a good argument can be made that taking the brakes off of the economy is good for everyone. In fact, in the long run, better than any welfare type program that has yet been proposed. So, you may have to put a time limit on the idea that some policies help rich people while others help poor people.
I agree. This is what I mean by the above paragraph.
Well, putting myself into a liberal mindset as I understand it, I would agree. However, the sorts of things we are talking about are multimillion dollar vacation homes and the fourth or fifth personal car. I don’t think anyone is arguing that any of that wealth is “generating wealth through good works”.
Why do you add this? Where have I said anything about the type of programs that should or should not be funded? I am talking about our society and our government. Allocation of funding should be determined by the elected representatives of the people. Do you mean to engage in some distracting side debate?
I am happy with any person who advocates for a progressive tax structure, fights against structural and procedural elements within government and society that increase disparity between rich and poor, and recognizes that the transfer of resources is the energy that drives our society. That person’s personal wealth is largely irrelevant, but if they happen to be wealthy, it makes me have more respect for their integrity than if they are wealthy but act in economically self-serving ways.
I object when people fail to see that growing wealthy within our society is dependent upon our society. The idea that money is “my money” doesn’t wash with me. A person may fairly earn large sums of money, but should not forget that they have been able to do so because of everything that our society does to support this. In turn, they should act in ways that are both sound for the functioning of society and ethical at a most basic level. This does not mean that they need to make themselves destitute to be ethical.
Charity is an individual’s decision regarding how they are going to distribute money and effort for causes they prefer for reasons that are their own. Governance I used in this sense to refer to decisions that we make as a society about how wealth and resources are distributed, in what ways the greater good is done and how successful we are at making our society function well. An individual cannot be responsible for ensuring that all members of our society (America, that is) have their basic needs for safety, health and education met.
It is hypocritical for a person to say one thing and do another. Do you really believe that liberals say people should not be wealthy? Where do you get this idea?
With all due respect, you haven’t gotten that idea from what I’ve been saying. I honestly believe that you brought that idea to the table yourself, perhaps from what you typically listen to or read. Where in there is anything about taking from others? I specifically tried to say that I don’t advocate capping personal wealth in the manner in which you appear to think liberals want.
I do think that that type of thinking is hypocritical, morally weak and malignant. I also think this characterizes Bush, Cheney and many Republicans. That is to say, they have benefited greatly from large tax cuts for the wealthy, taking it from others in the form of cuts to military pay and benefits, cuts to social programs, and cuts to our national security. Where are you failing to grasp this? The hypothetical person is not excluded from giving back to society. He gives proportionally more, in fact, but does not have to become destitute. Do you regard progressive taxation as turning out the pockets of the rich? Have we moved any wealthy people out of Beverly Hills because of taxation?
Did our policies of the 90’s put the brakes on the economy? It boomed, many, many people got wealthy, yet social programs were well supported, jobs were plentiful, individual wages and home ownership rose. If you are referring to supply side economics, it seems that we have had two trials of this, and they have not been successful. Certainly, social programs and general “welfare” have been hard hit when these types of schemes have been put into place, and with both Reagan and W. Bush, the deficits have boomed. Just about every bit of economic policy Bush has put forward has been an attempt to take money from the rest of us (by removing it from the government, which is very much us) and giving it to big businesses. It hasn’t been good for very many people.
I somewhat agree. I don’t think that Bush’s tax cuts are responsible for changing the economy or creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. As you point out, rich people have a nasty tendancy to invest in personal comforts, not job creation. I have a hard time buying crap like that when CEOs make 10,000 times more than most of the “grunts” doing most of the work. They invest some of it, but the money does not, and I hesitate to use this term, trickle down.
Here’s something I just read on the very point I am trying to make. It is from Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly’s Political Animal blog, quoting from the LA Times. I couldn’t read the article he refers to without registering.
John Kerry can have all the wealth he wants, as long as he follows similar principles and participates equally in their effects himself.
Didn’t you ask a question which suggested that we need to define the sorts of programs we are talking about? with this:
Did you mean to suggest that you are only interested in how the government’s money is collected? Does the use of it not enter into this discussion?
Honestly no. I truly am not trying to distract the discussion. I am honestly trying to understand the liberal mindset. My responses to your questions below may be helpful.
With the possible exception of the progressive tax structure one, I do not understand at all what you are talking about. What sorts of transfers do you mean? Are you suggesting that welfare is the energy that drives our society? I don’t think so, as this makes no sense. But you are also not talking about free exchange of values between independant actors. Can you explain this or point me to some resource wich does?
Ok, but this gets to the deeper philosophical issue of the problems that liberals have with self serving actions. Again, I do not mean to be insulting or to oversimplify things. But it seems that part of this argument is the idea that actions which benifit others at one’s own expense are somehow more moral than actions which benefit oneself. This seems silly to me. But then I do not view the economy as a war.
I agree. But I do not know anyone who does this to any significant degree.
This, however, takes the idea you expressed above too far. Clearly, someone who makes money in the free market does so because of the existence of the free market. The society which supports all of the institutions and tools used by that market has at least some claim on his wealth. However, to suggest that none of hsi money is his (which the quoted sentence certainly does seem to suggest) goes quite a bit too far. The fact is that it is also true that his wealth would not exist if it were not for him.
See, I can agree with this completely. However, I suspect that we differ in our definitons of what is ethical, and what is sound for the functioning of society. This differenc is what I am trying to understand.
I agree with this. However, what I was trying to understand is how the liberal ideal of alturistic giving to others affects personal conduct. Again, I am not claiming that unless someone gives all of his money away he is hypocritical. But it seems to me that part of the liberal ethos is that giving money to politically correct causes is central. It also seems to me that part of this ethos is the idea that we owe a great percentage of whatever wealth we attain to the society we live in. My problem is that these two things taken together seem at odds with the idea that it is perfectly ok for liberals to amass large fortunes.
to some extent yes. Notice your sentence above about “The idea that money is “my money” doesn’t wash with me.” How does this jive with the concept of personal property.
With all due respect right back, I think I have. I am willing to entertain the idea that it is a misunderstanding on my part. But it has become clear to me from numerous discussions on this board that the liberal ideas concerning wealth equity have more to do with tearing wealthy people down than they do with helping build poor people up.
Ok, then what exactly do you mean by “structural and procedural elements within government and society that increase disparity between rich and poor, and […]the transfer of resources [which] is the energy that drives our society” Perhaps a more detailed discussion of these things is outside the scope of this discussion. If so, that’s fine. But it seems to me that you are talking about welfare programs, government regulations, and the enforced spreading of personal wealth. I am still willing to be proven wrong, of course.
I do not view large tax cuts as taking from one class and giving to another. That’s what welfare does (and we can certianly include corporate welfare in this). Tax cuts simply refuse to take money from those who would otherwise have paid it.
Remember, again, I am not advocating that anyone become destitute. I am also not saying that liberals want everyone to be destitute. I’m trying to understand where the line between destitute, comfortable, and ostentatiously wealthy lies. It still seems to me that liberals would draw these lines differently for people who agree with them than they would for people who do not. Although I understand that such distinctions are not explicit.
Well, taxation in general is turning out the pocets of everyone who pays it. Are you asking if I think we have impoverished the rich in America?
I guess so. No, I do not think we have impoverished any wealthy people with progressive taxation. I do, however, think that we have put enough pressure on the economy that it is much more difficult to rise to become wealthy. Just my humble opinion, though.
Yes.
Quite true. In part at least because the technology industry which is not heavily regulated (yet) was able to grow at rates unprecidented for any industry in the last 100 years. There were other factors, certainly. Balancing the budget was certainly helpful. But government policies in general do not have as much affect on the economy as we would like to believe politically. That is, we can certainly give Clinton and the Republican congress credit for some fine work in the 90s. But we can hardly lay the boom of that time to their credit.
No, I am not really refering to supply side economics.
Ok, this I do not understand. How was welfare hurt under Reagan or either Bush. It is my understanding that the payroll tax increases which date back to Reagan have provided social security with a surplus which will be full for decades.
Well, this is where we part company again. Not taking money from a wealthy person is not the same as taking money from a poor person. I simply do not understand this reasoning. Perhaps it is me.
Well, I would not characterize it as nasty, but your right. People tend to spend money on themselves. I don’t think this is a bad thing. Wealthy people spend more on themselves than poor people, but they also invest a far greater amount of thier wealth than poor people do.
Well, this is perhaps from a misunderstanding of who does work in a corporation. I agree that we have a problem with CEO compensation in this country. It is not related to the amount they recieve, however. The problem stems more from a reluctance of boards to require that compensation be tied to long term growth rather than short term profits. If I may be so bold, this is due at least partly to the current political situation. The country is divided very evenly between liberal and conservative philosophies (and what passes for conservative is not necessarily fiscal conservative). It is not unreasonable to look into the future and be worried about the amount of profits one can expect from long term investments.
Well, I don’t mean to but in, but from Kerry’s energy plan, “Americans should drive the cars, SUVs, minivans and trucks of their choice, but these vehicles can be safer, more efficient and affordable. Kerry believes that we should increase our fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 and will also provide tax incentives for consumers to buy the vehicles they want and incentives for manufacturers to convert factories to build the more efficient vehicles of the future. Taken together these proposals will enhance national security, strengthen the American auto industry, and protect and create jobs.”
Doesn’t this mean that he wants people to buy whatever car they want but force manufacturers to sell more fuel efficient cars? Isn’t he suggesting that by driving more fuel efficient cars we can do better nationally concerning our dependance on foriegn oil? If he feels this is true, doesn’t he have an obligation to drive a fuel efficient car himself?
I don’t have the answers, this is just an observation in the form of a quesiton. Perhpas I am misinterpreting the quoted paragraph.
Just kidding. I understand. I think.