Well, I do think it was stupid to “elect” George W. Bush, but not because of his skin color or pysical fitness level. My comment was motivated mostly by an admiration for Chronolicht’s clever insults (which, I admit, later got a bit out of hand).
Even if I didn’t directly call you a racist in that other thread, it was implied, by me and several others. As I recall, you didn’t provide any real responses to the implication. You didn’t support your position with anything remotely like logic, nor did you admit that your position had no support.
Thank you. I don’t know the answer to your question, but I think it’s better to take care of the legitimate cases, even if a few cheaters get through, than to worry so much about the cheaters that the legitimate cases get ignored.
Incidentally, my crippled father tends to agree with you. As I said earlier, he easily qualified for lots of government assistance, but staunchly refused to apply (except for veteran’s benefits, which were pretty inadequate in his case). Pride, more than politics, was the reason.
“And the Chronolicht .vs. Milo Doper Deathmatch? My money’s on Milo. A Republican hockey player? Versus a student at U.C. Berkley? Unless Chrono is secretly Chelsea Clinton, in which case some serious looking guys in sunglasses will just knee-cap Milo with S & W .40s.”
Glute á Glute, I accept, Milo, My man. But I have a better deal for you if you have the Cuyoñes. I say we commodify ourselves completely and put the whole of ourselves into it. Our duel will be to the death, barehanded and will be symbolic of the struggle an ordinary person encounters in our present system of untrammeled business, based upon the philosophy of Homoeconomicus, a creature which is all knowing and acts with perfect self-interest all the time, the ultimate non-consequentialist. Now brace yourselves for my lusty rodomontade.
I finished Berkeley with very good grades after the state gave me shitloads of money to go to school. I got lots of scholarships (almost all of it state money. Why take the time to apply to private sources when you know the package that the school is going to give you will be quite enough?), by going to class on time, being interested and somewhat verbally facile. I am 37 now, was 32 when I started university, so it was really easy. 'Course, I am a white middle class male, so I have enjoyed the benefits of preference all my life. I also have all my teeth and have never suffered multiple fractures of the proboscis, so my money says I am better looking than you. Send your best headshot.
I have been practicing T’ai Chi for the last ten years and those twice yearly disbursements gave me ample time to ride my bike. My resting heart rate is 32-34 depending on the season and my BFI is 18. My Vo2 max is off the scale. I owe all I have to the genetic crapshoot, the lucky sperm club and a little gumption. You can be the superhero of rectitude, that hipchecking staunch defender of the freemarket, Milo! The Republican! S’got a nice sound to it.
I’ll be Timelight! The friend to plants everywhere!
Now. The proceeds to this fight will be equally divided, you can leave yours to Phyllis Schafly or Margaret Thatcher or whatever, and I’ll use mine to get a law degree in order to enter politics.
What say you?
Any trepidation you have should be measured by the fact that I wont humiliate you. I plan to pull a flea off your scarred and balding pate and obliquely throw it at your eye with such force that it will precipitate a massive brain hemorrhage, if you must know. It will look as if you collapsed and died of your own accord, in the face of righteous benevolence.
(P.S. Hockey is for Pu**ies. You little girlymen with all your padding never get your ears ripped off like us rugby players. How 'bout a scrum, little bullyboy.)
What are you talking about? How am I even supposed to debate with most of you people when everytime I get the upper hand on the conversatio, you all back off. Hell, I even caught Archmichael in a statement that fitted exactly with the definition of racism that he had previously given, but did he defend himself or further the debate? No, he just continued to call me a racist, just as you and most of the other people in that thread did. Now that, I feel, lacks “anything remotely like logic.” Also, when was my position having support the topic at hand? I don’t think the fact ever came up regarding whether or not anyone on this board supported me. Hell, why would I expect a any liberals, Democrats, or even some of the statists on this board to support a conservative ideology?
Actually, you happen to be right about this first installment of the tax plan. To quote from an editorial comment in this week’s Nation, “As we see it, the rebates, unlike the broader tax cut plan, are progressive; everyone who pays taxes gets virtually the same amount. Also, they help people hurting from the economic downturn.”
Of course, the catch is what happens down the road. As The American Prospect taxonomist Robert S. McIntyre notes, “The vast majority of American taxpayers will see the bulk of their tax cuts take effect this year, leaving only a small minority of taxpayers with a significant stake in the implementation of additional tax cuts after 2001.” [As he notes, this could be a bit of a political blunder on the Republicans’ part!] If you want more details, click here: http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/13/mcintyre-r.html
Just had to say…Great line!!!
Ahh…to be young and naive (or maybe just naive, I don’t know) and actually believe that these safety net benefits actually are the sum total of all the benefits that the government gives out to people (or even a large fraction of the benefits)…and that the “poor” rich people pay in a lot of money and get virtually nothing in return! [And, to think, such a governmental system was created in a political system in which candidates are virtually on the auction block to the highest bidder! Those rich folks are being real generous, I guess!]
Lemme be the liberal version of Ex-Tank in this discussion.
As I see it, individual income taxes go exclusively to finance the military. Why do I say this? In any given budget year, add up the amount given to defense, and then the amount paid out to interest on the debt. In any given year, you’ll find that the two match very closely.
Let’s take 1994, just because that’s the first year my eye fell on when I whipped out my American Almanac. Figures for that year are below:
National Defense - …281,563 million.
Interest on the debt - 296,278 million.
Total…577,481 million.
Individual income tax…543,055 million.
Difference…-34,786 million.
Remember that large portions of the government are financed by trust funds with dedicated taxes. These include Social Security, Medicare, the Highway Trust Fund, and airports, among many others.
Defense and social spending come out of general revenues. In that portion of the budget, the vast, vast majority of the spending is for defense and servicing of the debt.
The debt, as far as I’m concerned, is exclusively a result of funding for maintaining a standing army (and Navy and Air Force and Coast Guard and Marines and C.I.A. and on and on) which is many times larger than needed. So as far as I’m concerned, individual income taxes are a war tax.
I want my money back.
Of course, while they can’t tap into Medicaid, they can and do get the highest allotments from Medicare and SSN–and rather out of proportion to what they contributed since the caps on deductions mean that while a poor person forks over 7.6% of their wages for SSN/Medicare, a well off person forks over 1% and a rich person .1% or .001% or some miniscule fraction.
And, of course, if you get your wealth through owning or playing in a sports franchise, your major investment–your facility–is generally built and paid for by the community.
And when the feds rebuild a $500,000 house (or its second or third replacement) on the Atlantic coast because a hurricane swept it off the spot where hurricanes had swept away its equally costly predecessors, it is not the poor who are being re-imbursed. (Some of the low income victims of Hurricane Andrew and a huge percentage of the low income victims of last years’s hurricane in the Carolinas have still never seen any Federal insurance money.)
And the drug companies that keep demanding longer patents to cover the expense of developing new drugs never quite mention the huge investment made by the federal government in parallel research that is simply handed over to the pharmaceutical companies.
And the mining companies that are working on public land, that are paying rent at 1872s rates? (And for which the U.S. government, not the mining company, is responsible for environmental cleanup.)
And the majority of high tech companies, from computers to plastics to energy production, that are simply handed the results of government studies or are paid to develop that technology, but then allowed to keep it private despite its development having been purchased with public funds?
Nearly every major city in the U.S. (and in increasing numbers, each second tier city) has instituted tax abatement programs in the vain hope of keeping industries within their borders. The actual result of such largesse is that the industry stays for the duration of the abatement, then flees the city or holds the city up for an extension, thereby getting their fire, police, water, road maintenance, snow removal, (and often their trash removal) for free (paid for by the less wealthy).
WAIT! you say, those last examples are for corporations, not people. Hmm? And who is running those corporations and taking home salaries and bonuses that Fortune magazine compares to theft? (The Great CEO Pay Heist and Executive Pay - This Stuff Is Wrong
If I find it burdensome to slog through traffic to get home each evening, the government is not going to build me a special road to ease my drive. They have built such roads for the wealthy.
Read through the various “pork” reports that are produced after each federal budget is approved. A huge number of those budget riders are simply not-very-cleverly disguised handouts to the wealthy. Wait a minute. That’s not money given to the rich, that’s money for highways and bridges and docks and university research projects! Very true. Highways and bridges and docks and university research projects that need to have contracts let out to someone to supply the personnel and the materiel and the expertise to execute them. As Senator McCain points out (fruitlessly) each session, each of these projects is in addition to the actual requests made by the government agency responsible for carrying them out. They may have been deemed unnecessary or they may have been deemed valuable, but not needed at this time, but some (not poor) citizen in some congressman’s district figured that they needed the project now, so somehow it got put onto the general budget, directly from Congress, rather than coming through the Federal agency and the Congressional committee that is deputed to arrange these matters. (Gee, it couldn’t be because some rich guy was getting special treatment, could it?)
There are other, more subtle, ways in which the rich receive more benefits than the poor. Despite the fact that the big crack scare of 15 years ago (in which it was claimed that crack was inifinitely more addicting that powdered cocaine) was disproved within 18 months of its surfacing, Congress continues to impose stiffer penalties on the cheaper crack than on the powdered cocaine (which is more expensive and tends to be an indulgence of the wealthy). Going further, the DEA has admitted that they expend most of their resources attacking inner city crack distributors while basically ignoring the powdered trade in the wealthy suburbs.
A review of criminal justice reveals similar actions throughout the system. The poor almost certainly commit more crimes than the rich (aside from looting pension plans and the like). Yet reviews of the criminal system reveal that the poor will incur stiffer charges for the same actions as the middle class and the rich will incur softer charges. Once convicted of the same crime, the rich will be handed shorter prison terms or be sentenced to less restrictive facilities.
I am not a believer in Marxist Socialism or that the rich are inherently evil and must be laid low. However, I do believe that it is fair for those who receive more to pay more–and it is not the poor who receive more.
BabaBooey, I accused you of being an unintentional, accidental racist–i.e., I think you are very unsympathetic to the very real problems that still face black people today. That was in a thread about racial issues. I stand by that, but this isn’t the place to discuss it. If you want to talk about racism, I think you should do it in another thread.
Me, I’m pretty busy these days, and I may or may not be able to respond. If I thought you were paying attention to other people’s responses, I would probably find the time, but I don’t have the time to waste talking to someone who isn’t listening.
I should think you’d be pretty busy too, reading up on interest rates and unemployment.
Sua has already explained this quite well, so I won’t explain it further.
It just seems to me that clearly unemployment is a big deal to you- such a big deal that you’ve brought it up three times, even if it’s not directly relevant to the topic at hand. If it’s such an important topic for you, why not learn enough about economics that you can support your position with something other than namecalling? For that matter, don’t you think you should know your stuff before you make accusations of laziness and stupidity? If I were you, I’d be more than a little embarassed to find that the reason I didn’t understand the “stupid liberals” had less to do with their stupidity than with my own ignorance.
**
I would prefer it if you didn’t feel the need to insult people just because they disagree with you. What is it about that concept which you find so difficult to understand?
But then again, maybe you don’t need to treat people with respect, because you have no need to actually listen to their opinions. After all, you already know everything there is to know about economics, right?
**
What makes you think I have something against white people?
-Ben
“BabaBooey, if you expect to be taken seriously on these boards, I suggest that you learn. Ineterest rates are highly relevant to the discussion of unemployment in America.
While you’re at it, look up NAIRU - the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate or Unemployment. Under this economic postulate, there must be some level of unemployment - that is, slack in the labor pool. If unemployment dips below this level, inflation will spiral out of control.
NAIRU is accepted by almost all economists, and the Federal Reserve applies it when setting interest rates. The debate among economists is what is the level of unemployment that is NAIRU.
After you learn, you may well maintain the same position you have now. That’s fine; so long as it is an informed opinion.”
I looked up prime rate, and got very little information from what I found. If it’s the interest rate that banks charge their top customers, as I think is the “prime rate” that you all refer to, what does that have to do with unemployment. I wouldn’t mind more info on this, in case one of you has a link that explains it fairly well. As for the NAIRU thing, it looks like a decent amount inflation should have been taking place for the past 5 years or so, but it doesn’t seem to me that it is. Also, are you using the inflation rate as an excuse for someone not getting a job? That’s the only connection between it and the discussion. How many of unemployed people do you think say to themselves “Well, taking the Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, I don’t want the inflation rate to go up, so I will just not get a job and live off of the taxpayers. I mean, someone’s got to do it, so why not me?”
“If you would calm down and talk nicely, perhaps your ignorance will be fought. After all, that is the purpose of these boards.”
Well in past debates, others have done very little to fight my “ignorance” (which could easily be replaced with “conservativism”)other than screaming racism.
“Actually, racism by blacks and by whites are equally unacceptable.”
I was being sarcastic.
“If you voted for Bush, he is excellent shape for a man in his 50s.”
I agree, I wasn’t speaking specifically about Bush, just questioning what physical shape has to do with someone’s physical abilities has to do with their ability to be a good leader, along with someone’s race. I would very much like Chrono to further explain why voting for someone who is fat, or even more importantly white, makes them stupid. I highly doubt that he or she will answer.
“Well, I do think it was stupid to “elect” George W. Bush, but not because of his skin color or pysical fitness level. My comment was motivated mostly by an admiration for Chronolicht’s clever insults (which, I admit, later got a bit out of hand).”
Holy shit, you fooled me on that one. As I recall, you quoted Chrono’s exact, one sentence phrase about voting for
a white male making America stupid. Is that what you call clever? It was certainly insulting. And I like how it “later” got out of hand, but his/her comment about voting for a white man wasn’t? I don’t understand how you don’t find that kind of comment as being racist, but you found many of my actions to be.
“but I don’t have the time to waste talking to someone who isn’t listening.”
Listening to what, being called a racist over and over again with NOTHING to back it up? What do you want me to listen to, because I have paid attention to every single respectable position in every debate I’ve taken place in.
“What makes you think I have something against white people?”
“Ignorance” could easily be replaced with “conservativism,” you say? Hmmm. I wouldn’t put it quite that strongly; I know some intelligent conservatives. Their tone is a lot calmer than yours.
“Screaming racism,” you say? I said, in a thread dealing with race, that I thought you were being unintentionally and accidentally racist. (I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.) Is that what you call screaming?
Let’s take a look at what I quoted:
And that was all. Not a sentence, just a phrase. And yes, I think “monumental and pandemic stupidity” is somewhat clever. More creative, for example, than “morons” or “damn liberals.” (Let’s see, who was it that gave us those gems? Oh yeah–you!)
Yes, Chronolicht’s insults got out of hand. But Chronolicht is also more articulate than most, and that is what I was complimenting.
If you want to re-read what backed up that charge (which I made once, and gently at that), I refer you to the thread dealing with race. This one is about tax cuts.
Perhaps if you would learn to use quotes in such a way that we can see who you are quoting, this confusion about who you are addressing would go away.
Why don’t you just write a song called “Three Cheers for Social Security?” All you’d need is catchy tune, a gaudy outfit, a baton with dangles, and you could be a majorette for the Big Government marching band.
I’m not the complete, hardcore Anarcho-Capitalist that you believe me to. There are times when the Government is the proper entity to resolve problems or provide services, but in a much more limited capacity then currently allowed. Your laundry list of Governmental munificence and beneficence can be debated in other threads, but I’ll claim that the elderly are not necessarily better off with Government spending programs. It comes down to the simple fact that I don’t trust the Government to do things right or spend wisely. I don’t really trust private sector to get things done perfectly right either, but they’d probably do a better job than the Government in the long run…
**
Feeling a little on highfalutin with a liberal superiority today? Obviously, Fiscally conservative, anti-government types are simply month frothing lunatics without an iota of sense, reason, or reality—otherwise we’d be Liberals. To bad there is no government spending programs to aid us as we travel on that road to the Nirvana of political Liberalism.
Pick a topic, start a thread, and I’ll debate rationally.
Yes, I disapprove of my taxes. What would you do with $26K, Kimstu? Do you think that is a lot or money? Or just a little bit? Whole families are fed, clothed, housed, and entertained on $26K per year. I’ll bet there are people reading this who make less than that per year. But that is the sum my household paid in combined Federal, State, Social Security, and Medicare taxes in 2000. And that is just the barest of pocket change compared to what the top 1% pay.
As much as I would like to have it feasible, zero taxation is not a realistically possibility, so don’t yada-yada about having to put something back in for what I take out. I’m putting in more than needed right now, so I should be taking some of it back–that is the whole premise behind that tax refund, but that is a concept that the rational and realistic Liberals will not accept, they can only see spending it elsewhere. But with the exception of repaying the national debt, I can’t think of one excuse not to repay for overpaying.
It always amazes me how people can be so different. I am NOT saying I am right but just how different my view is…
My household also paid * something * in excess of $26k in taxes last year.
I don’t want a refund. My state (Minnesota) has been big on them for several years. At the same time, our public schools can’t afford to keep teachers and our class sizes are increasing. Our public college system is set to implement huge tuition increases.
Yes, there are people - my friends in fact - raising entire families on what I pay in taxes - boy am I glad for their sakes that I shoulder my share of the tax burden. At the end of the day, my kids are well fed, well clothed, we drive nice cars and live in a nice house, with lots of extras and savings for retirement and college. My friends are not so lucky - they scrimp for the basics - food, clothes, shelter for themselves and their kids. If the tax rate were flat - I’d come out smelling like a rose and the bank would be forclosing on their house.
You might say things like “they shouldn’t have had kids they couldn’t afford” or “you were hardworking, they were lazy.” No, my husband and I have been lucky, they have been unlucky. We have similar educations and come from similar backgrounds. When their children were conceived, they had no idea that they would have to struggle like they do, and when I had mine, I had no idea I’d be where I am now.
Well, if taxes were lowered you might be in the position to help your friends in need. Personally, I think it would be more meaningful to buy your friends a sack of groceries rather than let the Government take some funds, hire some to determine who needs the funds, hire someone else to print food stamps, ect ect. If you were to buy $100 in groceries, that would be a generous thing, they’re someone you know and like, but if you were to let the Government take the $100 and do it for you, through food stamps, do you think your friends would get a $100 value in groceries? Would there be the direct connection that they are someone you value and want to help?
As you say, people are different and have different views. If you believe helping programs are worthwhile, then you can donate the refunded and reduced taxes where you’d like to see them go. I want to invest mine personally for an early retirement. Government programs are not likely to include Pyrrhonist’s Early Retirement Fund. So unless there are going to be programs that would enable me to retire in my late forties to mid fifties, I’ll support lowering taxes. You can support or spend as you see fit on whoever or however you’d like.
Also, social programs are a pittance compared to Social Security, Defense, and Pork spending, but all the nickel and dime programs can add up in the end and can’t be excused from the trimmer’s knife just because the budgets are comparatively small.
When some one claims that I shouldn’t get a tax refund for what I want, they are basically saying what they want to use it for is better than what I want to use it for. Isn’t that another way of saying they’re right and I’m wrong?
**
You seem a little Rawlsian with idea that everyone should want social fairness to prevent possibility unluckiness happening to them. I’ve never bought that line of reasoning–I’ll stick with everyone is the master of his own destiny with or without bad or good luck. There is probably more to your “success” and their “failure” than just luck even if it is not immediately apparent on the surface. This is not the Middle Ages when people believe in the Great Wheel of Fate bringing one man up and pushing one man down.
“I looked up prime rate, and got very little information from what I found. If it’s the interest rate that banks charge their top customers, as I think is the “prime rate” that you all refer to, what does that have to do with unemployment. I wouldn’t mind more info on this, in case one of you has a link that explains it fairly well.”
The economy (and the opportunity for work) expands and contracts by the rates set by the Federal Reserve bank. The rates charged by private banks are determined by the Reserve’s rates. An example: Say you are a developer. You are building houses. This employs a lot of tradesmen. Plumbers, electricians, etc. Most developers have to have bridge loans and such to complete their projects. If these loans are too expensive (the interest rates are too high), the developer wont develop. He (or she) can’t make any money if all his profit goes to the bank. High interest rates deter economic activity/ risk because it is harder to make a profit. These same high interest rates deter potential homeowners from buying houses. The effect of interest rates is manifold. If interest rates are low, economic activity speeds up and labor is harder to find (everyone who wants to work can find a job), thus increasing labor costs (greater demand for labor creates higher wages, (supply and demand for any “product”[labor] creates higher prices for that product) which in turn make all products more expensive because businesses raise prices to offset increased labor costs. This is called inflation. The size of the available labor pool (the unemployed) is inextricably related to interest rates. In other words, Greenspan’s inflation fetish causes untold human misery.
Re: the “extreme” per capita money taken back to Alaska by that state’s senators.
Recall that Alaska is far and away our largest state. It also is one of the bottom (is it THE bottom?) in total population. A large state, with many wilderness interests and a HUGE amount of federally owned land will, by necessity, take in a lot of federal money. When this is combined with the fact that the per capita division is over such a small population, of course the per capita spending will be out of whack. It’s almost a guarantee. I’d bet that if we were to look at the per square mile or per square mile of federal land spending, rather than per capita, the discrepancy would vanish rather quickly.
