Democrats solution to everything

[Looney]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari
The "less fortunate" shouldn't have children they can't afford. Abort it, I sure as hell don't want to pay for their sexual irresponsibity.

Okay, I'm not saying this is what you believe (as it obviously isn't), but... let's just keep in mind that the same general crowd who is against "handouts and welfare queens" is also against abortion. For the most part.

It's called hypocrisy.

It's called personal responsibility and accounting for your own actions.

Killing babies is bad, but dumping some runt on taxpayer's door is worse.

Ah yes, and letting kids starve because they were unfortunate enough to have been born poor is the Christian way!

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari
The "less fortunate" shouldn't have children they can't afford. Abort it, I sure as hell don't want to pay for their sexual irresponsibity.

Okay, I'm not saying this is what you believe (as it obviously isn't), but... let's just keep in mind that the same general crowd who is against "handouts and welfare queens" is also against abortion. For the most part.

It's called hypocrisy.

It's called personal responsibility and accounting for your own actions.

Killing babies is bad, but dumping some runt on taxpayer's door is worse.

Ah yes, and letting kids starve because they were unfortunate enough to have been born poor is the Christian way!

This guy is all heart, eh Looney???

Blame innocent children, let them strave to death. As long as his money is safe.

What a disgrace.

"People" -- and I use the term VERY loosely -- who think this way are the only ones who deserve such a fate, IMHO.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: BBond

The educated class reaps the benefits of the modern economy - seizing for itself most of the income gains of the past decades - and then ruthlessly exploits its position to ensure the continued dominance of its class.

I hate to break this news to David Brooks, but today people with bachelor's degrees are a dime-a-dozen and many of them cannot find half-decent middle class jobs. That includes even people with advanced degrees and Ph.D.'s in the sciences. We have a large overabundance of lawyers (3 years of additional and expensive schooling after a bachelor's degrees), MBAs (2 years), and even science Ph.D.'s (5-8 years).

So don't kid yourself David Brooks. A great many hard working ambitious people with college degrees have also suffered at the hands of the Bushcession. (Don't even ask about people with computer science and IT type degrees.)

The government, the politicians, and the news media often spit out propaganda telling people that they need to "retrain". Retrain--for what ??? Years ago when people were laid off from manufacturing jobs they retrained for IT jobs, but then those jobs were sent overseas too along with many other knowledge-based jobs that aren't almost literally nailed down to the soil.

So what should people "retrain" for? I wonder where all of these privileged jobs for the educated class are.

If Brooks wanted to write an article about class warfare, he should have discussed how the wealthy are trying to merge the middle class with the billions of impoverished people in the third world through a process of labor wage arbitrage--foreign outsourcing, foreign work visas (H-1B, L-1), mass legal immigration, and mass illegal immigration.

I really don't think that there is an inherent class warfare between the educated classes and the non-college-educated classes because they depend on each other. People who perform knowledge-based jobs need a healthy economy to support the existence of those jobs, which in turn helps those who perform non-knowledge-based jobs, and vice versa. I don't think the class warfare is between the middle class and the poor. Rather, I think it's between the rich versus the middle class and the poor.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari
The "less fortunate" shouldn't have children they can't afford. Abort it, I sure as hell don't want to pay for their sexual irresponsibity.

Okay, I'm not saying this is what you believe (as it obviously isn't), but... let's just keep in mind that the same general crowd who is against "handouts and welfare queens" is also against abortion. For the most part.

It's called hypocrisy.

It's called personal responsibility and accounting for your own actions.

Killing babies is bad, but dumping some runt on taxpayer's door is worse.

Ah yes, and letting kids starve because they were unfortunate enough to have been born poor is the Christian way!

Allowing the poor to pump out child after child unchecked and having the wealthy pay for it is the liberal way!

Blame innocent children, let them strave to death. As long as his money is safe

I don't blame them. I blame their foolish parents. And I do support having an increased child welfare policy for kids unfortunate enough to be born in such conditions.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: wavshrdr
Here is what I don't understand about our current tax model, why is it the more you make, the greater percentage they take? If applied this logic to something perhaps such the Olympics, the faster the runner ran the 100m sprint, the more weight I would toss around his neck. Does this seem fair and equitable?

Furthermore why should I be penalized because I delayed my gratification by going to school, working my a$$ building my business, putting my own personal savings at risk to build said business and when I am finally successful, then penalized for my success? I assumed ALL the risk. The government then redistibutes my hard work to everyone else.

I tend to agree with you and in fact I would claim that I even support a capitalist-leaning mixed economy.

However, I do think you should contemplate whether or not we have a true meritocracy and whether luck and the avoidance of bad luck might have played a role in your success.

What about all of the people with education and advanced degrees, including useful professional degrees, who have above average ability and who are very hard workers, but who are just poor interviewers (poor innate ability to get people to like them in the first three minutes or who weren't members of the good looks lucky sperm club) and cannot find jobs in their fields? What about those who were unfortunate to graduate into an economic recession and ended up unemployed or underemployed-out-of-field and then lose the entire value of their degrees since they then suffer employment discrimination (for having gone unemployed for a while or for having been underemployed-out-of-field)?

I mean, let's suppose that someone had a law degree and that he were a graduate of a top twenty law school but that he were just a poor interviewer for some reason and had bad looks. In reality, if hired, he would produce spectacular work product, would get along well with people, and would work long hours, but he just doesn't have that used car salesmanship ability to get people to like him in the first three minutes of an interview and graduated during the pit of the recession and end up underemployed-out-of-field.

Suppose that guy would gladly be willing to do the very same work as someone getting paid $130,000/year for the bargain price of $75,000/year. Does the guy getting $130,000/year necessarily have a moral claim to the value over $75,000 when someone else would happilly produce the same work for $75,000? Might we say that he's overpaid and that the superficiality of hiring entities who discriminate against the other guy is responsible for paying him that excess $55,000/year? Also, could luck and the avoidance of bad luck have been a factor? I mean, could it be mere luck that the guy graduated during an economic boom and was able to land the $130,000/year job and not suffer employment discrimination for having gone unemployed or being underemployed-out-of-field?

When you look at it that way--when you consider that, objectively, a great many people would happily do much of the same work just as well or better for less money than people who currently have a great many high paying jobs, you have to wonder whether they really should be entitled to keep all of the money they received in compensation merely because they were lucky enough to get established and had good first three minute interviewing skills.

For those reasons, I really don't have a problem with progressive taxation because I know that our current economy is far from being a meritocracy and that luck and the avoidance of bad luck play large roles in financial success. Sadly, effort, ability, and work ethic are mere necessary but not sufficient conditions--you can take moral actions and still suffer.

Of course, I would hope that we can achieve an economy so healthy that people don't suffer employment discrimination for superficial reasons and that everyone can work and produce to the best of their ability, at which time reducing the degree of progressive taxation might be justified.

My message -- yes -- much of your success was based on your own hard work and effort and you are morally entitled to benefit from it, but at the same time luck (such as having a personality that developed in childhood to allow you to be a great natural interviewer) and the avoidance of bad luck also play a large role and a great many people are not so fortunate. So don't be so indignant over the higher tax rates--a huge number of people of tremendous productive ability would love to have your job and would gladly pay those high tax rates in exchange. If you are a member of the upper middle class, you have no idea just how lucky you are and just how many people with excellent ability and work ethic are relegated to the middle class and lower middle class, especially in an economy that has failed to generate new middle class jobs for years.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: BBond
You're right. The "less fortunate" want to work at close to slave wages and raise their passel of children in dire poverty, near starvation, without any help.

Does anyone think that anyone who works at a poverty wage retail job wouldn't prefer to work at a factory for $30,000/year? The sad thing and the dirty secret about our current economy is that many people do not have the opportunity to work and to achieve to the best of their ability. Many people do not benefit from their own moral and righteous actions. The solution is for us to establish the best economy and the best employment market possible while also trying to eliminate economic externalities.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Not enough tax revenue in the mid term and that is my point. Wealth isnt created over night and if some in the middle class moved up it would take years. In the mean time the middle class is forced to take the burden of the tax reciepts that used to be picked up by the rich. In this case if the top 5% leaves the middle class is left paying about a half trillion dollars

Just guessing off these numbers are are looking at a tax rate increase of at least double to make up the difference. We are talking about going from 25-30% tax rates to 50-60% tax rates. What do you think that will do to the middle class?

Presumably many of those middle class people would become wealthy very quickly as they rushed in to fill the void. My point wasn't necessarily that the rich aren't paying taxes. My point was that the rich don't have a monopoly on productive ability and moral ambitiousness and that the work they do in this economy is not irreplacable.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
but yet the socialist countries have some of the best standards of living in the world and the US continues to borrow it's way into the hole with republicans insane taxes feding a pointless war machine.

This thread title should be more like, taxes and out of control spending and government, the republicans answer to everything.

...And we're only seeing a portion of the spending that the Republicans are doing in the form of taxes. We will be paying the actual amount of spending for years because the national debt has ballooned under them. Other than calling him the worst president in American history, the Bush might properly be described as [/b]The Credit Card President[/b]. He spends money today that we do not have and we will have to pay it off tomorrow at high interest rates.



http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1600950&enterthread=y[/quote]

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
but yet the socialist countries have some of the best standards of living in the world and the US continues to borrow it's way into the hole with republicans insane taxes feding a pointless war machine.

This thread title should be more like, taxes and out of control spending and government, the republicans answer to everything.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1600950&enterthread=y

Sure that is why people swim across an ocean, a river in Texas, and across a desert in the southwest to come to the United States. Because the socialist countries in Europe are better.

I got you.

btw I heard an interesting statistic about illegals in this country. Apparently of the 13 million or so estimated illegals in this country only about 7 million of them are from Mexico and Latin America. Where do you think the rest came from?

Hint is Royale with Cheese.

Question: Why?

One possible answer, aside from obvious geography, is that those socialist countries are smart enough to prevent illegal immigration, to have very low levels of legal immigration, and/or not to give out government benefits to non-citizens. Something the United States needs to do as well.

I want to immigrate to the nation smart enough not to want to let me in unless I'm bringing at least upper middle class wealth with me and then only if the population isn't growing at an appreciable rate.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
The world is actually pretty disgusted with what america has become if not one of the most hated countries on earth.

We have become a nation of idiots -- and we will get the poverty and squalor we deserve.

Just look at the politicians that we elect. Look at cultural barometers such as the type of intellect that network television shows and movies pander too. (I can barely watch network TV, and now even the nightly national news has little news content.)

We have allowed what was once the greatest economy in the world with the healthiest middle class of any large nation to degenerate into what is becoming a third world country.

We lost or never had any sense of national economic selfish interest and we are going to pay dearly for it, and I doubt that the nation will have the wherewithall and desire to recover. After we've become a third world country with 500 million people, a huge portion of whom are of Mexican and third world origin, will there be enough people who have the wherewithall needed to fix the country? Highly doubtful.

America will go down in history as a nation that founded itself on a good idea but that also demonstrated that freedom is not sufficient to overcome idiocy. The idiot society will have had enough freedom to run itself into the ground by transforming itself into a third world country. The lesson will be that in order to have a prosperous first world nation with a thriving middle class you need freedom, rationality, and a sense of national economic selfish interest (in order to protect one's self from the mass poverty of the rest of the world).

I think the Japanese have a good grasp of the lesson. The Chinese have a good chance of figuring it out too. (I think India is more likely to remain an impoverished India or a Mexico than it is to become a Japan. India has to solve its overpopulation problem before it can really go anywhere. China already takes that issue seriously even though its approach is unpalatable.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Same old story.
Cant come to grips with the fact the United States is still the greatest country on this planet.

Historically, I'd say that the U.S. is the greatest country in world history.

However, in the past thirty years, has it remained the greatest country from an economic standpoint? Might the populace in other countries (such as Japan perhaps) have a higher quality of life and a stronger economy? Might their economic outlook be brighter?

What do you think the U.S. will look like 50 years from now when the population is 450 or 500 million and when labor wage arbitrage (with the billions of impoverished people in the third world) has eradicated the nation's middle class? What will it look like when our large cities have doubled in size, suffering from outrageous population densities? What will it look like when the environment is severely stressed?

That's where we're headed because we lack any sense of rational economic selfish interest. I'm not a socialist, if you can believe that. I actually support a capitalist-leaning mixed economy. I'm really a pragmatic moderate capitalist-nationalist.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: zendari
Allowing the poor to pump out child after child unchecked and having the wealthy pay for it is the liberal way!

Uhm...it's also the Christian way...and the Republican way. It's not like the Christians and Republicans are large advocates of legalized birth control and abortion.

I wouldn't mind having federal subsidies for abortion--because it would probably be an awesome investment. Pay, what, $500 or $1000 (or whatever) for the procedure and save thousands of dollars in welfare costs, medicaid costs, education funding costs, increased population costs, etc. That would be a hot deal.

I also like the idea of subsidizing sterilization, perhaps through tax credits. The government could provide free sterilization for drug users (aka no more crack babies).

Of course, the Christians and the Republicans would surely oppose all of that. After all--people need to carry pregnancies to term for Jesus!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: zendari
Allowing the poor to pump out child after child unchecked and having the wealthy pay for it is the liberal way!

Uhm...it's also the Christian way...and the Republican way. It's not like the Christians and Republicans are large advocates of legalized birth control and abortion.

I wouldn't mind having federal subsidies for abortion--because it would probably be an awesome investment. Pay, what, $500 or $1000 (or whatever) for the procedure and save thousands of dollars in welfare costs, medicaid costs, education funding costs, increased population costs, etc. That would be a hot deal.

I also like the idea of subsidizing sterilization, perhaps through tax credits. The government could provide free sterilization for drug users (aka no more crack babies).

Of course, the Christians and the Republicans would surely oppose all of that. After all--people need to carry pregnancies to term for Jesus!

I like the finance side of this idea. The bad thing about this is that state subsidized abortion leads to it becoming a method of birth control. There needs to be strict disincentives so someone doesn't use such a program more than once, at most twice.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari
The "less fortunate" shouldn't have children they can't afford. Abort it, I sure as hell don't want to pay for their sexual irresponsibity.

Okay, I'm not saying this is what you believe (as it obviously isn't), but... let's just keep in mind that the same general crowd who is against "handouts and welfare queens" is also against abortion. For the most part.

It's called hypocrisy.

It's called personal responsibility and accounting for your own actions.

Killing babies is bad, but dumping some runt on taxpayer's door is worse.

Ah yes, and letting kids starve because they were unfortunate enough to have been born poor is the Christian way!

Allowing the poor to pump out child after child unchecked and having the wealthy pay for it is the liberal way!

It's easy to judge because you haven't live in their shoes. How many people do you really think who had the opportunity to go to Yale or similar school didn't because they CHOOSE to have kids instead, and live on welfare? Probably not many. Take two identical rose bulbs, and place one in a garden that's well tended, and the other on the gravel road by an industrial factory, which will you think will blossom into a better rose?

It's easy to tell people to stop having babies and make a better life for themselves, but you're not willing to give them the opportunity to do it? Yes, giving that mom a welfare check probably won't make her a better person, but if we make sure her kids are well fed, well housed, well educated, then her kids just may break the cycle.

 

[TBone48]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: zendari
Allowing the poor to pump out child after child unchecked and having the wealthy pay for it is the liberal way!

Uhm...it's also the Christian way...and the Republican way. It's not like the Christians and Republicans are large advocates of legalized birth control and abortion.

I wouldn't mind having federal subsidies for abortion--because it would probably be an awesome investment. Pay, what, $500 or $1000 (or whatever) for the procedure and save thousands of dollars in welfare costs, medicaid costs, education funding costs, increased population costs, etc. That would be a hot deal.

I also like the idea of subsidizing sterilization, perhaps through tax credits. The government could provide free sterilization for drug users (aka no more crack babies).

Of course, the Christians and the Republicans would surely oppose all of that. After all--people need to carry pregnancies to term for Jesus!

It always comes down to Jesus doesn't it. Just because He was against killing and violence? Why do you have to invoke His name to justify your views, when you obviously have no respect for what He stands for? Don't any of your precious Democrats believe in Jesus and His teachings? What a ridiculous position to put yourself in. Only Republicans oppose abortion? WTF?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: TBone48
It always comes down to Jesus doesn't it. Just because He was against killing and violence? Why do you have to invoke His name to justify your views, when you obviously have no respect for what He stands for? Don't any of your precious Democrats believe in Jesus and His teachings? What a ridiculous position to put yourself in. Only Republicans oppose abortion? WTF?

I said it for emphasis. My point was that their view isn't motivated by reason, but by primative religious mysticism. I'm atheist, so in my view the people who believe in a diety are irrational and stupid, like sheeple. (One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.) I don't really have a problem with people who choose to be like that as long as they internalize the costs of their own irrationality so that it doesn't affect me.

 

[TomKazansky]

"If your not apart of the solution, your a Democrat".

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Tab
Republicans solution to everything...

Screw the working class! Tax them to death! Take away Social Security! Arg!

How are the working class being taxed to death?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Tab
Republicans solution to everything...

Screw the working class! Tax them to death! Take away Social Security! Arg!

How are the working class being taxed to death?

Maybe by being worked to death in order to afford being taxed to death.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674How bout the Rich leave?

Lots of planet for them to go if they don't like paying their fair share here.

Then what? ahhh, the Government would take care of us because they are so benevolent.




===============================
Q: Know what they called people who distrusted the Government in the 60's?
A: Liberals
Q: Know what they call people who distrust the Government today?
A: Conservatives

(I'm sure the humor challenged will now speak.)

 

[bkspitfire]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What makes people hate the rich anyway?

Is it anything more than pure envy?

This guy is a pure ass.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: bkspitfire

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What makes people hate the rich anyway?

Is it anything more than pure envy?

This guy is a pure ass.

LOL! Welcome to Anand.

 

[bkspitfire]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bkspitfire

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What makes people hate the rich anyway?

Is it anything more than pure envy?

This guy is a pure ass.

LOL! Welcome to Anand.

 

[CocoMunkee]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Amazing. I'm still waiting for an intelligent repsonse to my question.

Sadly, I don't think that I'm going to get one.

No reason, no logic, no vision - just hatred and petty jealousy.

And you wonder why Democratic power is waning?

Excellent point Rip. You should know by now that AT is full of lefties. We are a minority here. I do enjoy rattling the liberal branch, it gets the bee's buzzing. Remember lefties, We Won.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CocoMunkee
Excellent point Rip. You should know by now that AT is full of lefties. We are a minority here. I do enjoy rattling the liberal branch, it gets the bee's buzzing. Remember lefties, We Won.

Are you a religious fundamentalist too?