America is the country with the richest individuals...

[JBecker]

Ah, no. A proportional tax cut is the only right way to give a tax cut. Why should a railroad tycoon pay more of a percentage of his income than the person he employs? A fair share is exactly that: a percentage of the pie regardless of how big the pie is. When the playing field is even, then people will strive to be their best. But if you penalize people more for succeeding, then you take all incentive away. It is a simple equation of diminishing returns. Why work harder, longer, and with more innovation if the reward is less than proportionate? And that is simply the truth.

 

 

Because the railroad tycoon consumes the same amount (from a macro prospective) if he has $5million or $4.8 million whereas the hundreds of workers he had consume a lot more (from a macro prospective) if they make $60,000 versus $55,000.

 

More than that, because the importance of the money and the necessity of that money is diminished the more you have.

 

More than that, this whole argument is absolutely nuts because I still have seen the country where high tax rates stop rich men from working, and I've yet to see someone who is in the second highest income bracket slow down or stop working or not attempt to move to the next bracket because of tax changes (and I live in an area where household median income is about 90k so I see a lot of people moving into those higher brackets over time).

 

It's a nonsense argument where a simplistic view using "common sense" actually falls apart with just a little teeny bit of further investigation.

 

Let's try this again-- is it true that we shouldn't have a graduated tax because that means the wealthy "disproportionately" serve as a part of the tax base, or is it true that we should have one because the wealthy also disproportionately have the money.

[JBecker]

All you have to do is look around. There are more middle class communities than there are urban, rural, or mansions. We don't have the peasant and the royalty although some may think so. Go to urban or some rural areas and notice the similarities. Go to middle class communities (suburban) and see the levels of peoples desire to maintain what they do have. It's far different than the other two classes on both the appreciation level and work ethic.

 

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. All of the demographics disagree with what you just wrote. Way to go.

[marshallnoise]

Because the railroad tycoon consumes the same amount (from a macro prospective) if he has $5million or $4.8 million whereas the hundreds of workers he had consume a lot more (from a macro prospective) if they make $60,000 versus $55,000. More than that, because the importance of the money and the necessity of that money is diminished the more you have. More than that, this whole argument is absolutely nuts because I still have seen the country where high tax rates stop rich men from working, and I've yet to see someone who is in the second highest income bracket slow down or stop working or not attempt to move to the next bracket because of tax changes (and I live in an area where household median income is about 90k so I see a lot of people moving into those higher brackets over time). It's a nonsense argument where a simplistic view using "common sense" actually falls apart with just a little teeny bit of further investigation. Let's try this again-- is it true that we shouldn't have a graduated tax because that means the wealthy "disproportionately" serve as a part of the tax base, or is it true that we should have one because the wealthy also disproportionately have the money.

 

 

Because the tycoon consumes the same as the railroad worker, he shouldn't HAVE to pay more taxes.

 

Same goes for property taxes. You live in a $1,000,000 house and you pay $12,000 a year in taxes. You have 2 kids.

 

Your neighbor a couple of streets down lives in a $500,000 house and pays $6,000 a year in property taxes. He has 2 kids.

 

Do you use more streets, bridges and public schools than your neighbor? Of course not.

 

Just because it doesn't hurt the rich person's pocket as much, that is no excuse to simply penalize him because he does make more money. That is all that these taxes are for.

 

Look at the flip side of the equation: Don't you think that someone who pays more in taxes (proportionally) should have more say politically than the person who simply isn't vested in the system the same way?

 

That being said, you cannot have it both ways. You can't tax disproportionately and expect proportionate represenation everywhere in the system.

 

There are haves and have nots. The goal of every man should be to move as high as they want to and stop where they get uncomfortable. But if you want that Ferrari, you are gonna have to go out and earn it. If you want that XBOX, you have to go out and mow some lawns.

[Ron Burgandy]

Wow, lots of Obama blame in this thread.

Because he suddenly created the class separation that exists, and has existed, in our country.






My theory still exists that we have moved to such a specialized environment, that one hand doesn't know what the other hand does.

People picked apart the finance sector, and created new ways to make money off of the same services. Middle men forced themselves in, services/goods raised in price as these items were more "easily" obtainable, investors became part of the equation only focusing on short term gain, and essentially they created a house of cards that stood until last year. Instead of making money off a reasonable population, profit margins were split up/shaved down to be made up in sheer volume.

Look at loan terms of the past.

- 15/20 year mortgages have become 40 year mortgages.
- 2 year car notes have become 7 or 8 year car notes.
- Credit/Charge cards used to be available to the financially responsible, and businesses weren't using late fee/overbalance fee to boost stock prices

Gone are the days of people having healthy savings accounts, spending within their means, budgeting, and working for what they have.

However this is due to these middle men, lax guidelines in the finance sector, and the general population being stupid and having no idea what to do with new found ways to acquire crap.

[marshallnoise]

You have no idea what you're talking about. All of the demographics disagree with what you just wrote. Way to go.

You operate in the unrealistic world of academia.

[***1776***]

More real world appliances and less academic and teachings

[K-Bizzle]

Wait wait wait a second here.
You're saying the wealthy don't have more representation?

What do you call lobbying and campaign finance then?

[Uncle_Milton]

You operate in the unrealistic world of academia.

 

You're very dogmatic and paranoid aren't you?

[HKSblade1]

 

Wow, lots of Obama blame in this thread. Because he suddenly created the class separation that exists, and has existed, in our country. My theory still exists that we have moved to such a specialized environment, that one hand doesn't know what the other hand does. People picked apart the finance sector, and created new ways to make money off of the same services. Middle men forced themselves in, services/goods raised in price as these items were more "easily" obtainable, investors became part of the equation only focusing on short term gain, and essentially they created a house of cards that stood until last year. Instead of making money off a reasonable population, profit margins were split up/shaved down to be made up in sheer volume. Look at loan terms of the past. - 15/20 year mortgages have become 40 year mortgages. - 2 year car notes have become 7 or 8 year car notes. - Credit/Charge cards used to be available to the financially responsible, and businesses weren't using late fee/overbalance fee to boost stock prices Gone are the days of people having healthy savings accounts, spending within their means, budgeting, and working for what they have. However this is due to these middle men, lax guidelines in the finance sector, and the general population being stupid and having no idea what to do with new found ways to acquire crap.

 

 

it's not Obama blame. Look at all the fat cat elitist POS in DC on both sides of the aisle telling us all what is best when it only ensures their power or survival at the polls. People are stupid, suckers, and blind!

 

The credit {censored} amounts to private responsibility. You have some that will not go over their heads and others (majority) that MUST be in the HAVE crew. I'll blame some on corporate affair and lack of regulation to an extent, the rest I blame on the card holder. Someone gives you an unloaded gun, you have to seek the ammo and then fire it. Common sense!

 

The Govt should not be our baby sitters. WTF happened to people anyway?

 

Schools? Haha ha aha ahaha ha!! what a f'ing joke! I will bet almost every school that had levies to RAISE the bar did not meet the bar standards after the levy passed. C+ is about the avg rate in the US for a single student... yeah.. go compete! Some work extra hard, most do not. Our workforce in the past has used the same curves to grade its efficiency and quality.. didn't fool the consumers did it?

 

Our schools had some ridiculous courses like "self being 101". It was required! I asked my son what was that? He said it's about understanding yourself and social circles.

 

Ok Great... how about ECONOMICS ! Economics is NOT required and has not been for a long time.

 

Savings accts- Funny you mention that. WHO does that? Odd when a family with 2 working adults cannot make ends meet on say.. 80k combined salary? I see that all the time. Go in the back yard or in their house and see why.

[The Anomaly]

When poor people have ipods and CableTV, you bet your ass the streets are paved with gold. We don't know poor like most of the world knows poor.

 

 

Idiotic post is idiotic. Dude you don't know poor people, and by looking at your previous posts about that subject, you don't know how poor people live. If you did, you wouldn't include ipods/Cable TV and poor people in the same sentence.

 

You have a VERY narrow view of a small segment of people that you equate with being "poor", that actually doesn't reflect the reality of what (real) poor people live like everyday.

 

I know exactly where you're coming from, and the segment you keep bringing up does exist, but it is not inline with people who can't eat, nor heat their homes.

[Holy War]

ill still wake up every morning and put my pants on one leg at a time

[dmtnt]

Idiotic post is idiotic. Dude you don't know poor people, and by looking at your previous posts about that subject, you don't know how poor people live. If you did, you wouldn't include ipods/Cable TV and poor people in the same sentence.

ORLY? While I'm sure there are some people truly living in poverty, let me show you an example of why that post was NOT far off:



Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter --

$0.00

Having Michelle Obama serve you soup --

$0.00

Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Blackberry cell phone --

Priceless

[Phishmonkey]

 

Ah, no. A proportional tax cut is the only right way to give a tax cut. Why should a railroad tycoon pay more of a percentage of his income than the person he employs? A fair share is exactly that: a percentage of the pie regardless of how big the pie is. When the playing field is even, then people will strive to be their best. But if you penalize people more for succeeding, then you take all incentive away. It is a simple equation of diminishing returns. Why work harder, longer, and with more innovation if the reward is less than proportionate? And that is simply the truth.

 

 

Explain the massive undercomsumtion that caused caused the great depression then, since apparently historians and economists got it wrong. Did people just not feel like buying consumer goods? Why didn't the wealth trickle down? The rich were insanely rich, shouldn't that have benefited the economy instead of destroying it?

[Say Ocean]

Homeless people are not a good guage of poverty. Trust me, I've known a few and worked with a lot. A lot of them are just insane, literally, others just enjoy living on the streets because that's where everyone they know is, and a lot make more than minimum wage pan-handling. By and large your average homeless person wandering around with something expensive like that doesn't have anyone to care for, and if you look at it, he still has about zero net worth because he doesn't even own a house or anything else.

So just because one homeless person made a bunch of money pan handling and was crazy enough to buy a retardedly expensive phone or stole it, doesn't mean that every single mom raising 2 or 3 kids is going to have the same experience.


Like I said, homeless people are not a good gauge of actual poverty. Many are literally insane, I mean few people HAVE to be homeless for very extended periods of time unless they have a mental illness or just get sucked into life on the streets.

[The Anomaly]

ORLY? While I'm sure there are some people truly living in poverty, let me show you an example of why that post was NOT far off:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The point you are missing, is that the guy in the picture IS NOT POOR.

He has:

Sunglasses
Clothing
Cellphone, with a service contract that must be paid for every month or it gets shut off.

You have to get it out of your head that people like this are "poor". They are not. It's a horrible situation, he probably only took advantage of the possibility of seeing/meeting Michelle Obama. He doesn't belong in that shelter, and I bet he walked right out the door when he was done eating.

I'm looking out of my office window right now, on the street in Philadelphia. There are two HOMELESS men that are out here everyday. They don't have ipods or cell phones, the people walking by them who have jobs, are listening to their ipods.

Notice the difference between your picture and mine:

[Say Ocean]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The point you are missing, is that the guy in the picture IS NOT POOR. He has: Sunglasses Clothing Cellphone, with a service contract that must be paid for every month or it gets shut off.

 

 

To be completely fair, I don't know about sunglasses, but it's not hard for homeless people to get good clothing. REI donates a lot of over stock and left over stuff to the shelters so you see a lot of homeless people wearing $2-300 jackets, and cellphone companies also offer $1 a month plans for people in poverty so that they have a phone for emergency situations.

[Phishmonkey]

To be completely fair, I don't know about sunglasses, but it's not hard for homeless people to get good clothing. REI donates a lot of over stock and left over stuff to the shelters so you see a lot of homeless people wearing $2-300 jackets, and cellphone companies also offer $1 a month plans for people in poverty so that they have a phone for emergency situations.

 

 

True, I've done volunteer work handing out clothes and food for the homeless, its not that hard for them to get some decent clothing. The organization I worked for also gives phones to some of the community leaders to help organize things. Not blackberries though, that guy might be faking

 

Of course there are some assholes that are obviously just playing the system. I remember handing out soup to one guy with an blackberry, ipod, bose headphones, and a jacket that was more expensive than mine. They're out there, but they aren't representative of the homeless community as a whole at all. Pointing to one of these douchebags and saying that this is an example of "poverty" in America is ridiculous. The large majority of the homeless people I've met work as day laborers and make enough to get through day by day assuming they can get donated clothes and shoes

[The Anomaly]

Yeah.

 

Also, sure, there are people out there who have "things" that may not "deserve" them, or people who live in bad areas who have some "stuff", my point is that at least some number of those kinds of people are not "poor". They may live in that area, and whatever income they have may not come from legal or savory means, but they have cash, are buying a lot of the stuff they have.

 

There is a difference between those kinds of people, and like Say Ocean used as an example, a single mother of 2 or 3 who has a bad job and can't keep the heat on in the house. Big difference.

[marshallnoise]

Explain the massive undercomsumtion that caused caused the great depression then, since apparently historians and economists got it wrong. Did people just not feel like buying consumer goods? Why didn't the wealth trickle down? The rich were insanely rich, shouldn't that have benefited the economy instead of destroying it?

 

 

The Great Depression was caused by "wealth" being caused by building wealth out of straw (stock markets). When the house of cards came down, people weren't sure what held value anymore.

 

And what exactly are you referencing in terms of underconsumption? I have never heard that people weren't spending money and that is why the financial markets collapsed.

 

The worst thing leading up to the great depression that separated the poor from the rich were lack of labor laws.

 

Get it out of your head that rich people destroy economies. That is the most bassackwards thing I have ever heard.

[Phishmonkey]

 

The Great Depression was caused by "wealth" being caused by building wealth out of straw (stock markets). When the house of cards came down, people weren't sure what held value anymore. And what exactly are you referencing in terms of underconsumption? I have never heard that people weren't spending money and that is why the financial markets collapsed. The worst thing leading up to the great depression that separated the poor from the rich were lack of labor laws. Get it out of your head that rich people destroy economies. That is the most bassackwards thing I have ever heard.

 

 

There was no one factor that caused the Great Depression, it was a mix of

1) Unstable international finance caused by WWI debts

2) Lax credit standards

3) Massive underdomsumption caused by a disparity of wealth

 

Investing with borrowed money was a serious problem, but the stock market had very little effect on Americas economy in the end. It actually rebounded not long after the crash but that did nothing to slow or stop the depression

 

And are you seriously telling me that underconsumption wasn't a major cause of the depression? Have you never taken a history class? Why did the price of consumer goods plummet? What was the point of the NIRA and the NRA then?

[JBecker]

Just because it doesn't hurt the rich person's pocket as much, that is no excuse to simply penalize him because he does make more money. That is all that these taxes are for.

 

No, taxes are not to penalize the rich. They're to sustain the government's activities.

 

Look at the flip side of the equation: Don't you think that someone who pays more in taxes (proportionally) should have more say politically than the person who simply isn't vested in the system the same way?

 

Did you miss the early part of this thread where I stated I could have just as easily posted a picture like that to represent power? I actually don't think they should have more say politically (separate issue), but they very clearly have at least as much disparity in political influence and power, if not even more disparity

 

. That being said, you cannot have it both ways. You can't tax disproportionately and expect proportionate represenation everywhere in the system. There are haves and have nots. The goal of every man should be to move as high as they want to and stop where they get uncomfortable. But if you want that Ferrari, you are gonna have to go out and earn it. If you want that XBOX, you have to go out and mow some lawns.

 

First of all, that's an underlying assumption that material wealth is the ultimate goal, and it's just a matter of defining to what end your material desires are. Second of all, we're not talking about people seeking luxury items we're talking about getting to the point where they can live, and not even comfortably necessarily. Third, you're assuming that everyone who puts in effort is empowered to achieve in the United States, a notion which is ideal, but far from where this country has ever been. For some people, what you would consider a simple goal like getting an XBox is utterly unattainable, no matter what kind of "effort" they put in.

 

Equality of opportunity does not exist in the United States. It seems you have no perspective on what kind of poverty exists in the United States (just like most middle class and upper class people) and it seems you have no interest in hearing that for every story about someone who came from literally the most difficult situation possibly and through effort, rose above the {censored}, there are 10 stories of people who worked even harder from that same situation that haven't moved one inch.

[marshallnoise]

No, taxes are not to penalize the rich. They're to sustain the government's activities.

 

 

The government's activities primarily mean that the government takes from Peter, to pay Paul. And the government can always depend on the support of Paul.

 

Our poor ARE the richest poor in the world. Save your bleeding heart crap for the classroom. Trust me, this forum largely represents products of liberal education.

 

If you own a substantial portion of a company, your word carries some weight. Why should that be any different in the political world? It shouldn't and it largely isn't. Money keeps rich people beautiful and living longer. Does it suck? Sure, if you dwell on it. But if you live your own damn live and fill it with the best you have to give, you shouldn't envy a soul.

 

Material wealth (which includes house, cars and amenities) is the goal. What determines how much material wealth is enough for you is all in your pretty little head. Don't let envy steal your joy away. Be satisfied with what you have. Don't be pissed because your neighbor has a new car and you don't.

 

In most major cities, outside of being head of household working full time at McDonalds with 3 kids, anyone can make their ends meet. It depends on the budget of the person and what they value. I feel no remorse for a woman who chooses the man she sleeps with and has different daddies for her 3 kids. That is simply not my problem. Their kids are now my problem, but if we put an education system in place that doesn't coddle them and actually asks them to make something of themselves, then they are no longer a problem.

 

And I absolutely believe that anyone, with enough drive, can get ahead. The only limitations that exist happens between their ears. If they have the drive and ability to see beyond next week, they can make it. They can even pay their mortgage in spite of the value being less than it is worth. People want immediate results and only want to participate when the "pot is sweetened" enough. Life issues bitter pills sometimes; tough {censored}.

 

Government is the single biggest roadblock to prosperity in this entire nation. Ever hear about the homeless man who wanted to scrounge enough money up to get a deposit on a room to rent so he started shining men's shoes in a local park? The local government told him he had to pay a permit fee for "operating his business on city property." Talk about kicking a man while he is down and driven.

 

Contrary to popular (your) belief, I do not exist to fund the Federal, State and Local governments that I live in. You can be the slave to the state if you want to, but I certainly won't. As an educator, I don't owe you a frigging dime. I hired you with my tax dollars and if I wasn't having my money confiscated from me every April 15th under penalty of jail time, I would fire your ass.

 

I am so sick of people and their damned entitlement mentality.

[JBecker]

Ok, you ignored almost all of my post. Let's try again:

 

 

The government's activities primarily mean that the government takes from Peter, to pay Paul. And the government can always depend on the support of Paul.

 

 

Now we're talking about the theory as to what government should be. I don't think that the underlying motivation behind whatever re-distributive action the government takes is that they're seeking to take away from small numbers of people to make large numbers of people happy. Government, and the social contract, is based on the idea that we're served better by acting as a group to solve and address some issues than existing solely as individuals. Government is the means by which we interact as a group for the good of the group and provides stability. The result is almost always some sort of re-distributive effect since we're all expected to give up some of our sovereignty to the group, and there are always going to be people that individually in isolation would benefit from not giving up any sovereignty-- we choose to live like this because these people view these structures as essential in creating an environment in which their success was possible and is stable.

 

If you're against any re-distribution than you're essentially against any government and you're an anarchist. If that's the case than we may as well cease this conversation because we're at such an impasse that cannot be bridged.

 

 

Our poor ARE the richest poor in the world. Save your bleeding heart crap for the classroom. Trust me, this forum largely represents products of liberal education.

 

1) I'm far greater than a product of my education, which until two days ago was primarily in organic chemistry. I didn't know that learning chemistry somehow puts me in a bleeding heart classroom.

2) Our poor has more buying power in other countries throughout the world than they do here. Just because other people live on $1 a day does not mean that you can do that in the United States. Outside of that, if the causes of poverty were lack of effort and equity of opportunity existed, we'd have no disagreement-- let them fail. But you've yet to address my claim, no, accusation, that true equity of opportunity does not exist in the Untied States. This is hardly a refuted fact, but it's one that's often ignored by someone who takes your particular hardline approach to poverty and taxation. For what it's worth, taxation does not create nor solve poverty or wealth. It never has in this country and it never will.

 

 

If you own a substantial portion of a company, your word carries some weight. Why should that be any different in the political world? It shouldn't and it largely isn't. Money keeps rich people beautiful and living longer. Does it suck? Sure, if you dwell on it. But if you live your own damn live and fill it with the best you have to give, you shouldn't envy a soul.

 

It's not about envy. This has nothing to do with individuals wanting to acquire an 80 year life span or looking beautiful, this is about tremendous disparity in this country where almost all of the resources of our nation are concentrated in the top 10% of wage earners and we have a bottom 20% that can barely stay alive.

 

Material wealth (which includes house, cars and amenities) is the goal. What determines how much material wealth is enough for you is all in your pretty little head. Don't let envy steal your joy away. Be satisfied with what you have. Don't be pissed because your neighbor has a new car and you don't.

 

In one sentence you're saying that material wealth is the entire goal of life (knowing that you're a Christian, I have to say, your theology is utterly opposed to this idea), and in the next sentence you're talking about not feeling envy and not striving for more wealth. So are you saying that everyone should have a personal struggle to amass whatever wealth they can for the meaning of life? What you're saying is inconsistent, and in many ways, utterly nonsensical.

 

 

In most major cities, outside of being head of household working full time at McDonalds with 3 kids, anyone can make their ends meet. It depends on the budget of the person and what they value. I feel no remorse for a woman who chooses the man she sleeps with and has different daddies for her 3 kids. That is simply not my problem. Their kids are now my problem, but if we put an education system in place that doesn't coddle them and actually asks them to make something of themselves, then they are no longer a problem.

 

This is almost 100% bat {censored} crazy to start and inconsistent at the end. I have a question-- how do we create this education system without any redistribution of resources? I'm not even going to address your mythic concept that it's as easy as going and getting a job (not a problem) which pays well (equally not a problem) and that budgeting and making smart life choices is something they're equipped for, etc etc etc.

 

Not only are these things far more complex than they make them, but your colors are showing as someone who has never experienced or observed true, systemic joblessness and poverty.

 

 

And I absolutely believe that anyone, with enough drive, can get ahead. The only limitations that exist happens between their ears. If they have the drive and ability to see beyond next week, they can make it. They can even pay their mortgage in spite of the value being less than it is worth. People want immediate results and only want to participate when the "pot is sweetened" enough. Life issues bitter pills sometimes; tough {censored}.

 

This is just not reality. I'd list parts of cities you should visit (since you won't read books or look at numbers), but I know you'd never go and you'd never talk to those people, and that you'd never allow objective research or even your own experiential knowledge get in the way of your ideology. You've made that clear.

 

Government is the single biggest roadblock to prosperity in this entire nation. Ever hear about the homeless man who wanted to scrounge enough money up to get a deposit on a room to rent so he started shining men's shoes in a local park? The local government told him he had to pay a permit fee for "operating his business on city property." Talk about kicking a man while he is down and driven.

 

Great story. Care to back up the statement that government is a roadblock to prosperity and explain who's prosperity they are blocking? And if they're a roadblock to prosperity, why turn to education to make these people not your problem? Education is one of the top three expenditures of the government.

 

Contrary to popular (your) belief, I do not exist to fund the Federal, State and Local governments that I live in. You can be the slave to the state if you want to, but I certainly won't. As an educator, I don't owe you a frigging dime. I hired you with my tax dollars and if I wasn't having my money confiscated from me every April 15th under penalty of jail time, I would fire your ass.

 

I'm not an educator. This sounds like your back on your anarchist bent. If you're an anarchist, you could move to other places where they have skeleton governments or governments which are so ineffective they're essentially non-existent and see how well that goes for you. Working hard in those situations, without the government as a roadblock, I'd expect you'd turn into Warren Buffet in about 10 years.

 

I am so sick of people and their damned entitlement mentality.

 

 

What entitlement have I mentioned in this thread? How do you define entitlement? Is this an accurate definition? Historical definition? Your own made up definition?

[marshallnoise]

Ok, you ignored almost all of my post. Let's try again: Now we're talking about the theory as to what government should be. I don't think that the underlying motivation behind whatever re-distributive action the government takes is that they're seeking to take away from small numbers of people to make large numbers of people happy. Government, and the social contract, is based on the idea that we're served better by acting as a group to solve and address some issues than existing solely as individuals. Government is the means by which we interact as a group for the good of the group and provides stability. The result is almost always some sort of re-distributive effect since we're all expected to give up some of our sovereignty to the group, and there are always going to be people that individually in isolation would benefit from not giving up any sovereignty-- we choose to live like this because these people view these structures as essential in creating an environment in which their success was possible and is stable.

I am afraid you are WAY wrong. The social contract portion you defined is correct. But the result portion you are speaking of is how it has been distorted in practice, not how it was conceived. Initially, this country's government existed for the sole purpose of protecting the citizens from enemies foreign and wide as well as promoting and facilitating commerce.

The result that we have now is exactly what our forefathers were trying to avoid. Instead, we totally ignored them. With the original intent in mind, no sovereignty would have to be surrendered. Tell me, what sovereignty is surrendered by having our government protect us from foreign invaders or building a highway? None.

If you're against any re-distribution than you're essentially against any government and you're an anarchist. If that's the case than we may as well cease this conversation because we're at such an impasse that cannot be bridged.

I am against redistributing wealth from one class of people to another. I am not against paying for services that are necessary for protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic and facillitating commerce. Please do us all a favor and understand that paying for services is entirely different than redistributing wealth.

1) I'm far greater than a product of my education, which until two days ago was primarily in organic chemistry. I didn't know that learning chemistry somehow puts me in a bleeding heart classroom.

Considering I have a bachelor's degree myself and naturally that would require a standard of lower education, I am qualified to say that not every single piece of your education was attained in organic chemistry. You had undergrad classes, liberal arts classes, creative writing (or other literary courses), etc. I am no dummy.

2) Our poor has more buying power in other countries throughout the world than they do here. Just because other people live on $1 a day does not mean that you can do that in the United States. Outside of that, if the causes of poverty were lack of effort and equity of opportunity existed, we'd have no disagreement-- let them fail. But you've yet to address my claim, no, accusation, that true equity of opportunity does not exist in the Untied States. This is hardly a refuted fact, but it's one that's often ignored by someone who takes your particular hardline approach to poverty and taxation. For what it's worth, taxation does not create nor solve poverty or wealth. It never has in this country and it never will.

True equity of opportunity does exist. If you have breath and you live in this country, you have the opportunity to better yourself every single day. Failure to even attempt this feat does not mean that opportunity doesn't exist. This does not mean keeping up with the Jones'. No one says life is easy and success is not defined by the car you drive.

It's not about envy. This has nothing to do with individuals wanting to acquire an 80 year life span or looking beautiful, this is about tremendous disparity in this country where almost all of the resources of our nation are concentrated in the top 10% of wage earners and we have a bottom 20% that can barely stay alive.

Unfortunately, most of the nations resources are in the hands of the federal government now. Especially considering that the federal government is the nations largest employer.

You really believe that the bottom 20% struggle to stay alive? LOL!!! Maybe the bottom 3%, but not the bottom 20%. And not to mention even if you were correct, which you aren't, some people (lots) are perfectly satisfied to be in the bottom 20%. Sure, they wish nice things would magically appear.

In one sentence you're saying that material wealth is the entire goal of life (knowing that you're a Christian, I have to say, your theology is utterly opposed to this idea), and in the next sentence you're talking about not feeling envy and not striving for more wealth. So are you saying that everyone should have a personal struggle to amass whatever wealth they can for the meaning of life? What you're saying is inconsistent, and in many ways, utterly nonsensical.

Oy! My theology asks me to store my treasures in heaven, not be a ward of the state. My theology also asks me to take care of my house and work if I am able to work and to take care of the people in my circle of life.

My theology also states we are free to choose whatever we want for ourselves, but there is one right way. If you choose to pursue a fancy house, nice cars, furs and jewelery, so be it. Not that it is the correct way to live your life, but you certainly have that choice.

But yes, every person has a right to define what success is to them and they should pursue it to their fullest without crushing someone else to get there. Anything else is laziness and opposition to it is criminal in my book.

[marshallnoise]

This is almost 100% bat {censored} crazy to start and inconsistent at the end. I have a question-- how do we create this education system without any redistribution of resources? I'm not even going to address your mythic concept that it's as easy as going and getting a job (not a problem) which pays well (equally not a problem) and that budgeting and making smart life choices is something they're equipped for, etc etc etc.

 

Public education should be reformed and (K-12) should be done in the home or at private institutions: The way education was always done. That way a parent has a choice in how their child is taught. Sure, some freaks will come out of it, but at least they won't need metal detectors when they enter their "daycare." :poke: But this will never happen in this country because the unions have such a tight grip on the bureaucracy.

 

Not only are these things far more complex than they make them, but your colors are showing as someone who has never experienced or observed true, systemic joblessness and poverty.

 

Have you observed systemic joblessness? Have you actually asked these people why they are jobless or did you only ask them if they had a job and how much money they make a year? I know many people who are poor, don't have a job, and refuse to ride the bus or wake up early to get a job. Their whole lives they have been told they are the victim of "the man" and the meanness of rich people.

 

This is just not reality. I'd list parts of cities you should visit (since you won't read books or look at numbers), but I know you'd never go and you'd never talk to those people, and that you'd never allow objective research or even your own experiential knowledge get in the way of your ideology. You've made that clear.

 

I have witnessed people in Memphis, Tennessee sit on their porches waiting for the city to come by and clean their front yard of tree branches after a large tropical storm swept through the area. 6 days later.

 

I have witnessed people say to me that they have no desire to move where a job opportunity is because "this is mah home and I ain't leavin!"

 

Where do you want me to go? I just might take you up on that offer.

 

Great story. Care to back up the statement that government is a roadblock to prosperity and explain who's prosperity they are blocking? And if they're a roadblock to prosperity, why turn to education to make these people not your problem? Education is one of the top three expenditures of the government.

 

Anytime that the government rewards failure with bank bailouts, food stamps and welfare checks, they are enabling failure and preventing people from prospering. What about all the people who paid their mortgage despite the values dropping or losing a job? They get screwed while people who should have never bought in the first place (lack of credit and assets) get bailed out or loans modified via executive order.

 

I already explained my stance on education. If educators would teach self reliance and empowered kids to do the right thing at all costs, this country might have a chance. But I don't expect that considering the educators suck on the teat of the government.

 

I'm not an educator. This sounds like your back on your anarchist bent. If you're an anarchist, you could move to other places where they have skeleton governments or governments which are so ineffective they're essentially non-existent and see how well that goes for you. Working hard in those situations, without the government as a roadblock, I'd expect you'd turn into Warren Buffet in about 10 years.

 

You were teaching last summer. I remember that. Sorry for mislabeling you if you aren't doing that anymore.

 

I am not an anarchist. I am a minimalist. I believe in my governments doing as little as possible to burden me and doing as much as they can to facilitate commerce. I expect my government to not listen to environmentalists when common sense says we need to drill for oil here, encourage businesses to innovate for alternatives, and to keep me safe from enemies. That is all I want. I'll teach my kids, I'll find a doctor, and I'll take care of my community.

 

What entitlement have I mentioned in this thread? How do you define entitlement? Is this an accurate definition? Historical definition? Your own made up definition?

 

Entitlement is simple to understand: When someone feels they are deserved something, usually for no personal investment.

 

The only thing people deserve is the freedom to pursue their dreams, one step at a time and if you are lucky, skip a few steps along the way. Operative word is pursuit.