Yup. The most prosperous nation in the world, made so by people interested in keeping the wealth they create. That’s exactly why the US is prosperous as it is. If this is seen as a lack of political sophistication, so be it.
- Rick
I don’t know you so I can’t say, but you may have had responsible parents who provided for your education or at least impressed upon you the importance of education. They may have stimulated your interest in reading, encouraged self-direction, set an example of industry and thrift. Again, I can’t know. But it is a mistake to take those kinds of things for granted when other children grow up in such abysmal circumstances that “lifting themselves up” seems about as possible as growing wings and flying away.
Er, what? You might want to take a look at this thread here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=238697&page=2&pp=50
So you’re saying that the hallmark of freedom is keeping every cent of the wealth you create, is that right?
Yes, that’s true. Although my parents were not able to totally fund my education ,they did impress upon me the importance of a good education. I can’t deny that, nor can I deny that they did everything they possibly could to further my education.
That is, however, a far cry from the suggestion that I was a from “privileged” family for the purposes of discussing tax and entitlement policies. In every discussion up until now, “privilege” in this context has referred to something quite a bit more concrete than encouragement and emotional support.
Indeed, my parents never broke any bones, never beat me bloody, never abandoned me at a rest stop in New Jersey. But I hardly think any of that qualifies as creating a “privileged” existence and it certainly does not give weight to the inference that, because I was able to build upon my father’s start and example of success, I should now contribute economically to handouts to others, when I was never a recipient of such handouts myself - by choice, I might add. Because the other thing my parents impressed upon me was the stigma of taking from others that which you did not earn.
- Rick
Hey guys, this thread is not about Bricker, whom I suspect is at heart an honest and decent (if kinda stingy) guy. Lay off.
It’s about Bush. Bush the Liar. Bush the Deceiver. Bush the Friend of the Rich, and Enemy of the Poor. Bush the Robber of our Children. Bush the Obseqious Toady of the Corporate World.
Oh how I wish I were being sarcastic in the above paragraph. Bush richly deserves those epithets, and more.
I concur with the OP. Bush’s interview was pathetic. For the good of the future of our great nation, and for the good of the world, this president needs to be soundly defeated in the next election.
His “I’m not going to lose” line sent a shiver down my spine as well. I’m not sure I trust this administration to allow a fair election. In actual fact, I am trusting so far, but I can’t ignore the nagging doubt in theback of my mind that this man would do anything to be retain power.
It’s sadly all too typical to see someone who has climbed the ladder wanting to pull it up after himself. It’s even more typical for someone who has achieved some success to tell himself, and others, that it was all due to his own special merits and hard work, without crediting any of the people or the support structure or the society or the government that helped him all along the way. Maybe that’s not true for our interlocutor here, but it looks a great deal like it. How else does one support Bush’s “I got mine, so do my friends, the little people’s grandkids can go pound sand” economic policies except through such arrogant selfishness?
NOt to mention that a former head of intelligence under Colin Powell appeared on 60 Minutes II last week and, based on the intelligence his own department had gathered while he worked for Powell, expressed bafflement at the thing Powell was telling the UN, saying the administration’s case for war came from “faith-based intelligence”
Defend this statement. In what way am I “pulling up” the ladder that I climbed? What specific opportunity did I have that I’m now wanting to deny to others?
- Rick
*Read * that statement. I did say it maybe wasn’t true for you. Maybe. It wasn’t mainly about you, anyway.
As for what “pulling up the ladder” means, I’m sure you know. It’s a shorthand term for the defunding and dismantling of government social programs that is the heart of the hard-RW ideology that governs the administration you so boastfully support. Your own specifics are your own concern. Many of us, though, share a sense of responsibility to the rest of us, and are willing to look at the broader issues outside our own cases. Deride that if you like, but you do have to try to understand it first.
Now, do you want to “defend your statement” about being happy with anyone who will cut your taxes, no matter the future consequences? Your silence hasn’t gone as unnoticed as I’m sure you’d like.
If you cherry-pick intelligence, and later deny having done so, how is that not a lie?
Best post I’ve read all month.
OK.
Fair enough. I do understand it. It’s not a crazy idea, after all – at heart, it’s a good and compassionate one.
The reason I don’t share in it is that I don’t think it’s as wise as it could be, and I don’t think it’s as moral as it should be, even though it’s motivated by pure and good ideals.
That’s not what I said. All other things being equal, I want my taxes cut. There are things I believe the government should spend money on, but the current approach to, for example, environmental spending is just fine with me. I don’t want it increased. You may NOT infer from that “no matter the consequences,” I want my txaes cut. There are plenty of consequences I wish to avoid. But so far, I like the decreased funding to environmental concerns and the fight to open up the Alaskan oil resources to drilling. That’s something I am willing to see happen.
- Rick
Not sure which incident Hentor was referring to, but it’s not inconsistent with Bush’s other cuts for the troops. There’s a list of them here, including a rollback of imminent danger pay, cutting off health care access to 164,000 veterans, and a 14% cut in funding for housing and medical care for military families.
As for the whole matter of cutting back taxes – everyone wants lower taxes and more money in their pocketbooks. We’re all greedy animals, genetically wired to horde more than we need. The bigger question is whether one wants to remain a greedy, selfish animal, or become a civilized person who realizes there’s more to life beyond Looking Out For #1.
So, does this mean you attach a stigma to for-profit corporations? After all, the only way a company can make a profit is when its employees produce more value than the company is paying them. The extra value is confiscated by the company’s shareholders, who are not themselves creating any value at all.
Bricker: A Salvadorian father? Was very poor years ago in America? Same here, I’m not impressed at all. I do think you are ignoring that something else than just the wallets of our grandchildren will be affected:
As Larry Gonick from his funny “Cartoon history of the universe” (relax: he does document his stuff) mentioned:
That was 4500 years ago and some people never learn, It is good to remove the excess, but the real problem will be when the cows get fat; and you have a government that will not do the sensible thing and then raise taxes to beat the new axis, control the deficit, and reform health care.
This current war against the “axis of evil” is indeed forgetting about what is a very important element for a war, Bush trying to get all the “credit” of Iraq on what it is indeed credit, is not a good idea if you are never willing to pay for it.
This president says we are in a war, I do agree, but this war president instead of saying that we need the taxes to beat the axis, is essentially telling us to party on, and also that a weak dollar is good for you. Well this may be good for the short term, but in the long run, this is spelling the decline of America.
IMHO, in a time of war, the spectacle of the well to do calling for more tax cuts, is reaching the levels of treason. Not there yet, but I do think more money for developing Afghanistan and Iraq would have been granted. The reconstruction of Europe after WWII was a big factor in stopping the growth of communism, to stop fundamentalist hatred in the ME, I think we will need to spend much more.
I rise to present a mild and affectionate chiding to friend Rjung: ain’t so.
Your comment that we are “hard-wired” towards greed and accumulation is a central tenet of what might best be described as Social Darwinism, a justly maligned crock o’ shit that holds that the rat race is the natural order of things.
We are monkeys. We live in groups, operate as tribes, hunt as a pack. He have elaborate systems of reward and punishment, based on what might best be described as tribal esteem. As Mark Twain remarked, “A man will do a lot to be loved, but he’ll do anything to be envied.” But that esteem is awarded within the strictures of tribal benefit, the hunter that brings home all the buffalo, leaving none to regenerate the resource, is no more “esteemed” than the hunter who keeps all meat for himself.
I recognize that I am rather blithely surmising years of anthropological and primate research into a nutshell, but I think the broad outline will withstand scrutiny: bald self-interest and grasping ambition is no more natural to our particular specie of monkey than a nipple-ring.
This is absolutely absurd.
The shareholders own the company. They are not “confiscating” anything - they are receiving a pro rata share of the company’s profits. They own the company, they get the company’s profits. They earn profit on their invested capital.
“Earning” does not mean simply, “What I make with my hands and sell for profit.” I earn my salary, because I provide to my employer a service that my employer is willing to pay me for. The mere fact that my employer is able to sell my services at a higher rate than they are paying me is not thievery. My employer has an infrastructure of providing services to clients, and it’s unlikely I could earn money on my own in the same way that I can working for my employer. I benefit from my employer’s ready access to clients, their existing non-cash benefits, such as group health care and pre-tax bonuses and 401(k) plans. My employer benefits from my skills by selling them to a client at a higher rate of pay than I am paid. The shareholders of my company - the owners - each receive part of that profit, proportional to the percentage of owndership.
That is earning. That’s not taking.
- Rick
Although I don’t know what specifically the poster of that quote had in mind, I have an example that I have not seen posted here on the SBDM.
Does that include inheriting wealth from rich parents?