U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-10-2006, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 594,239 times
Reputation: 175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
Evil Empire
In a March 8, 1983, speech in Orlando, Fla., Ronald Reagan shocked sensibilities worldwide when he declared the USSR the “focus of evil in the modern world”; it was an “evil empire.” It was impossible to argue with this claim. The USSR was unspeakably oppressive. The atheistic regime that carried out a “wholesale war on religion,” as Mikhail Gorbachev put it, was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its own people, at a rate and scale that made the Spanish Inquisition look mild. (Vladimir Lenin killed more people in the first six months of the revolution than leaders of the Spanish Inquisition killed over six decades.) A complete catalogue of Kremlin crimes would fill libraries.

Nonetheless, Reagan was vilified for his language.

The Liberals didn't like this, this is a model of how they would like the United States run.
Not sure what your angle is here. Ronnie's rhetoric was hard, I said that. But at the same time he wasn't so ideologically blinkered that he failed to take the opportunity for dialogue with Gorbachev when it opened up.

Incidentally, during his visit to Moscow when asked if he thought the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, Ronnie replied "No, I was talking about another time, another era." Again, hard on rhetoric. Pragmatic in action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
BTW as far as trickle down economics goes I never got a job from a poor person and I doubt the poor are in any shape to hire anyone.
A nice folksy comment, and not a new one I might add.

A rich man probably won't hire you either. If statistics hold true, in this country more than likely your employer is a firmly middle-class small business owner. And also more than likely he pays your salary from business funds, not his personal income. Your boss' income tax cut, whatever he got of it, would have precious little to do with your employment.

I be happy to expound upon why trickle-down economics is a shell game. But for fear of having my hard work rewarded with little aside from more folksy sayings or another complete non-sequitur, I'll just leave it there.

Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 12-10-2006 at 11:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2006, 05:51 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,025 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Not sure what your angle is here. Ronnie's rhetoric was hard, I said that. But at the same time he wasn't so ideologically blinkered that he failed to take the opportunity for dialogue with Gorbachev when it opened up.

Incidentally, during his visit to Moscow when asked if he thought the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, Ronnie replied "No, I was talking about another time, another era." Again, hard on rhetoric. Pragmatic in action.



A nice folksy comment, and not a new one I might add.

A rich man probably won't hire you either. If statistics hold true, in this country more than likely your employer is a firmly middle-class small business owner. And also more than likely he pays your salary from business funds, not his personal income. Your boss' income tax cut, whatever he got of it, would have precious little to do with your employment.

I be happy to expound upon why trickle-down economics is a shell game. But for fear of having my hard work rewarded with little aside from more folksy sayings or another complete non-sequitur, I'll just leave it there.


That folksy saying is true. You can take that dictionary out and try to explain it away with the largest words you can find, it's still a simple concept and I'm not sure why it is so hard to understand. You can expound all you want and run the risk of more folksy sayings or another complete non-sequitur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2006, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
944 posts, read 3,576,305 times
Reputation: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
That folksy saying is true. You can take that dictionary out and try to explain it away with the largest words you can find, it's still a simple concept and I'm not sure why it is so hard to understand.
Sorry to cut in on your debate, but I want in! To say "poor people don't create jobs" is meaningless if your point is to say that social inequity creates jobs. It doesn't.

This topic is way too complex to reduce to cute sound bytes. Suffice to say that there is absolutely NO evidence to support the theory that enriching the rich contributes to the betterment of society as a whole. Slogans are not evidence. Provide some proof and I'll read it. But the last 2 decades of American economics have provided a wealth of information indicating that the increasing disparity between rich and poor has made the majority of people WORSE off, not better. We're faced with overwhelming numbers of struggling 2-income parents who are forced to leave their kids at home alone so they can pay the rent and eat. And yes, I'm over-simplifying it too. There's much more to it than ANY sound byte can capture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2006, 07:11 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,025 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeptrance View Post
Sorry to cut in on your debate, but I want in! To say "poor people don't create jobs" is meaningless if your point is to say that social inequity creates jobs. It doesn't.

This topic is way too complex to reduce to cute sound bytes. Suffice to say that there is absolutely NO evidence to support the theory that enriching the rich contributes to the betterment of society as a whole. Slogans are not evidence. Provide some proof and I'll read it. But the last 2 decades of American economics have provided a wealth of information indicating that the increasing disparity between rich and poor has made the majority of people WORSE off, not better. We're faced with overwhelming numbers of struggling 2-income parents who are forced to leave their kids at home alone so they can pay the rent and eat. And yes, I'm over-simplifying it too. There's much more to it than ANY sound byte can capture.

If we were all a nation of poor we'd all be poor and nobody works. The rich employ people who would not have jobs. We are not worse off than we have ever been. Home ownership in this country has never been higher. The two income family usually live beyond their means and don't need two brand new cars and a 3000 sqft home and eating out every weekend. In the old days most people lived in homes that were 700-1000 with one bathroom, a seperate familyroom and livingroom was unheard of. It wasn't unusual for 5 children to share a room. I don't think anyone ate out back then or very few.Today it is considered living in poverty, back then it was a normal way of life. The American poor have a roof over their head,a color TV, cable ,access to heathcare, foodstamps and Wic. If anyone is homeless in this country it is a choice they make. We have numerous homeless shelters and organizations willing to help these people find a home and a job. Most of the homeless in this country are homeless because of an addiction problem or bad choices they have made in their life.

It's as simple as if a man doesn't work a man doesn't eat, although in this country you can. I've said it before, even in the days of the wagon trains people risk their lives to find a better life in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2006, 08:28 PM
 
311 posts, read 549,596 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
If we were all a nation of poor we'd all be poor and nobody works. The rich employ people who would not have jobs. We are not worse off than we have ever been. Home ownership in this country has never been higher. The two income family usually live beyond their means and don't need two brand new cars and a 3000 sqft home and eating out every weekend. In the old days most people lived in homes that were 700-1000 with one bathroom, a seperate familyroom and livingroom was unheard of. It wasn't unusual for 5 children to share a room. I don't think anyone ate out back then or very few.Today it is considered living in poverty, back then it was a normal way of life. The American poor have a roof over their head,a color TV, cable ,access to heathcare, foodstamps and Wic.
Sorry I can't add to your rep, you deserve it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2006, 12:14 AM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
454 posts, read 637,280 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeptrance View Post
Sorry to cut in on your debate, but I want in! To say "poor people don't create jobs" is meaningless if your point is to say that social inequity creates jobs. It doesn't.

This topic is way too complex to reduce to cute sound bytes. Suffice to say that there is absolutely NO evidence to support the theory that enriching the rich contributes to the betterment of society as a whole. Slogans are not evidence. Provide some proof and I'll read it. But the last 2 decades of American economics have provided a wealth of information indicating that the increasing disparity between rich and poor has made the majority of people WORSE off, not better. We're faced with overwhelming numbers of struggling 2-income parents who are forced to leave their kids at home alone so they can pay the rent and eat. And yes, I'm over-simplifying it too. There's much more to it than ANY sound byte can capture.
deep deep deep. I've been with you on a lot of things, but this one got me baffled. I am not going to get really detailed because my brain is fried due to a long day, but here is a "quicky"

I could send you back to the Reagan years and the effect of the dreaded "trickle down economics" and have you look at what the effect on revenue to the IRS (after lowering taxes), the unemployment rate, investment increases, but I won't. I will send you back to the presidency of JFK, the democrats favorite president on the 2nd half of the century. JFK drastically lowered the taxes... of the super rich. You tell me why?

I think that there is a misconception that the "rich" are these mega-millionaire lazy trust fund babies who spend the weekends in the Hamptons.

most millionaires are business owners and businesses that hire the people that make this country go. But the arguement really is based on the need to have businesses and investors have the financial ability to invest in growth. The government can either take the money via taxes, or can let that money be invested. If the government wants to take too much, the "rich" find ways to shelter this money (as we all would do). This does neither the government nor the private sector any good. Reducing the tax and allowing more investment means new business, new industries. The outcome means that the additional employees that this company hires creates a new taxpayer, or it may mean one less person in welfare going from a taker to a giver.

You are right in that there are many 2-income families that have to make very hard choices. This is not the fault of the "rich", or the tax rates they pay, but part of this problem is that our government has NO concept of how to reduce its own budget and their ever increasing demand that we all cut back so that it can get bigger. Does everybody realize that you work almost to May 1st before you have made enough money to satisfy your taxes? (including state taxes) We are being sucked dry with very little to show for it. Greatly reducing this burden would allow many 2 income families to become one income families, making room for mre americans who want to work the ability to work, and add more to the tax base.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2006, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
944 posts, read 3,576,305 times
Reputation: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
If we were all a nation of poor we'd all be poor and nobody works. The rich employ people who would not have jobs. We are not worse off than we have ever been. Home ownership in this country has never been higher. The two income family usually live beyond their means
Last point first --- I absolutely agree. This is a complex problem of culture and materialism. It's not one that is easy to solve or discuss in quick bits of info.

The opening comment is factually irrelevant. Where did wealth come from? The sky? It is created, not handed down from those who have been rich since the dawn of our species. A nation of poor (Vietnam) can out-perform a nation with lots of wealth (Brazil, Russia) if those poor have the incentives to create wealth through learning, working hard, working smart, and having a system that rewards their efforts with a minimum of corruption.

Many of the problems that exist in socially imbalanced societies are due to corruption. Concentrated wealth tends to lend itself to a continuation of that corruption. Look at Mexico --- it should be on par with at least the eastern EU nations, but the extreme concentrations of wealth prevent any reform because those at the top can just buy their laws, pay bribes, and continue to accumulate riches while the masses remain ignorant and desperate to get to the USA. We have good laws.

So that is my point, it's not some simplistic notion I have that we should raise taxes on the rich and have bloated welfare programs. BLECH! Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" is one of the worst things that ever happened to this country! You see why I have trouble squeezing my views into short posts? I can't! You automatically assume that I favor the typical liberal solutions of "tax the rich, feed the poor." I don't. I have OTHER ideas, and I bet you would like them... Maybe I'll start a thread, but my posts would be too long in order to explain all my ideas because they're completely outside the normal "liberal vs. conservative" debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dufferz View Post
deep deep deep. I've been with you on a lot of things, but this one got me baffled.
...I think that there is a misconception that the "rich" are these mega-millionaire lazy trust fund babies who spend the weekends in the Hamptons.
...most millionaires are business owners and businesses that hire the people that make this country go....
...If the government wants to take too much, the "rich" find ways to shelter this money (as we all would do). This does neither the government nor the private sector any good. Reducing the tax and allowing more investment means new business, new industries. The outcome means that the additional employees that this company hires creates a new taxpayer, or it may mean one less person in welfare going from a taker to a giver.
You're partly stating some of my positions except that I think the kind of tax cuts we've had on wealth and income have been ignorant when they could be more selective and incentive-oriented.

One of the common conservative mantras is to never use taxation for social policy. But every tax system, no matter WHAT it looks like, is social policy. Every law, every rule, creates social policy whether you think it does or not. Better to have an educated guess regarding the unintended consequences of your tax system than to blindly cut or raise taxes without any foresight as to the complex results of those changes to the tax code. What I'm about is smart taxes that create incentives to hire people at decent wages without punishing employers. The current laissez-faire policies of the Right are blind and ideological. They need to be intelligent and pragmatic. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there's also no such thing as a free market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2006, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
454 posts, read 637,280 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeptrance View Post

One of the common conservative mantras is to never use taxation for social policy. But every tax system, no matter WHAT it looks like, is social policy. Every law, every rule, creates social policy whether you think it does or not. Better to have an educated guess regarding the unintended consequences of your tax system than to blindly cut or raise taxes without any foresight as to the complex results of those changes to the tax code. What I'm about is smart taxes that create incentives to hire people at decent wages without punishing employers. The current laissez-faire policies of the Right are blind and ideological. They need to be intelligent and pragmatic. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there's also no such thing as a free market.
I would not say never, but you are right. When we move money from one group to the other via policy and law, we create social policy. That is why most conservatives think that the government should refrain from fiscal social policy, including pet programs for big business that the liberals point to. Our government should be in charge of our security, and the basic services that were designed by the founders. Way too many people look at the government as the place they get their income from. Way too many people get a tax refund check and proclaim "I got $$ back from the IRS". Huh? No, the government got to use their money all year, and gave them back some of their money. It did not come from the IRS like a paycheck comes from an employer.

It has long ago been proposed by many conservatives that the government should require people to pay their taxes each month separate from the automatic deduction. Writing the check each month to the IRS would show people how much they are paying. Sorry. Got off track.

I think the current laissez-faire policies of the Right are less blind and ideological but more so a necessary action to a over bloated government that calls a reduction in a proposed increase a cut when it is just a less of an increase.

To cut taxes in a surgical way is sometimes like trying to clear a mud flow with a teaspoon. Lets get the government to slim down so everyone is taxed less, then shape the tax credits et. al. after the monster is tamed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2006, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 594,239 times
Reputation: 175
Hi,

This has gotten way too B-itchy.

Folks, let's regroup. There's an interesting topic to be had here. Do we want to discuss the merits & pitfalls of tax cuts? Dufferz? Deeptrance? Kimber please you are welcome here too.

Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 12-11-2006 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2006, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 594,239 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
That folksy saying is true. You can take that dictionary out and try to explain it away with the largest words you can find, it's still a simple concept and I'm not sure why it is so hard to understand. You can expound all you want and run the risk of more folksy sayings or another complete non-sequitur.
Folksy sayings don't defy facts. Your employer doesn't hire you because he got a tax cut on his personal income. It's all about his business cash flow. I never thought I'd say that an MBA would actually do someone some good, but in this case....

But if you can tell me why Gandhi wore his purple feather boa on his way to Hitler's mom's funeral, maybe we can find another topic to disagree about, SWEATtea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top