Your Presidential pick? [Archive]

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 00:01

And where's the ultimative problem with that? Okay, instead of asking you about your personal opinion towards taxes perhaps I should rather ask if you understand why people for different reasons want to raise taxes?
Because whether or not you are middle-class or above doesn't necessarily mean you are against taxes.

As I said, I'm not against taxes, but the rates are high enough. Cut the fat, trim the handouts. If we still need raises after that, I'd consider it, so long as EVERYONE pays more. I am perfectly aware of the various excesses in our government spending, everything from wasted money regarding Katrina to lost money in rebuilding Iraq.

However, our taxation rates are already reasonably high. Too high taxes produce a very real drag on long term economic growth, just as too low produce a drag through the lack of infrastructure and other friction it produces.

I just finished my taxes. When you add up federal, state and local income taxes (I live in NYC, so I get them all), social security (which even at current rates is insolvent long term) and medicare/medicaid, my tax rate is right at 40%.

And the funny thing is that while yes I make a lot of money, because of where I live, I still barely fit into a middle class lifestyle (doesn't stop the federal government from taxing me the same as someone that lives in a palce with half the cost of living though).

Like I said, I will support additional taxes if we trim the fat, cut the handouts and then STILL need additional revenue. Of course, we won't trim the fat or cut the handouts because politicians like getting re-elected.

dteowner

March 7th, 2008, 00:08

Well said, BN. I don't know why our friends on the left find that so hard to understand. It ain't rocket science...

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 00:10

Because our friends on the left are of the opinion that they have a right to redistribute the money you earn as they see fit.

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 00:32

Because our friends on the left are of the opinion that they have a right to redistribute the money you earn as they see fit.

That's a very loaded way of putting it, BN... especially as it appears that, when we get down to the practical level, we don't really differ all that much. We've agreed that we need some kind of social safety net, some kind of general educational system, some kind of unemployment insurance, and some kind of universal or near-universal health care system. Hell, I suspect we may even agree that the squillion-dollar executive compensation packages we've been seeing recently are a tad on the generous side and we just might want to think of some ways to limit that kind of excess. All that adds up to a pretty big redistributive effect.

Basically, us lefties don't believe that redistribution is a "right" or an end in itself. Moreover, you won't find any mainstream leftie who'd want to completely flatten wealth differentials -- most of us would consider the income distribution of the USA in the 1960's as plumb near ideal.

We just recognize that (1) left to itself, the market tends to concentrate wealth, (2) excessively concentrated wealth leads to extremes of wealth and poverty, and (3) something can be done about (1) and (2) without going all Commie on it -- and, by definition, this "something" is a redistributive effect. I for one think that actually taking money from X and giving it to Y would be an extreme case and a very small part of the whole -- pensions, unemployment benefit, very basic social security. (You're well aware of the "pyramid" nature of the pension system, I'm sure.)

Make the market serve democracy, rather than the other way around, or something like that.

chamr

March 7th, 2008, 01:00

Well, he wants to raise them!

Oh really? On the middle class, you say? How do you define "middle class"? And can you link to where Obama says he's raising taxes for these "middle class" folks, please? Thanks.

NYC aside, the US actually taxes its citizens less than most first world nations. Saying, "cut all the fat first, then raise taxes" is just as extreme as saying "raise taxes first, then look at spending". It's not really an either/or type of thing. Both need to be done. The rich and corporations get taxed way too little for the benefits they receive from living/operating here. Plain and simple. Or as dte would say: "not rocket science". Something needs to be done about that. And, in fact, it could be seen as "cutting the fat" as a lot of tax breaks and corporate welfare are what I'd consider both a "fat" issue and a "tax" issue.

Conversely, the working poor get taxed too much. Something needs to be done about that.

As with most things, a better balance needs to be struck between cutting taxes and reducing spending. And the spending reduction needs to be in the right place: i.e. not at the expense of the poor, public transportation or art. But rather at the expense of the rich and corporations jumping through so many tax loopholes they get dizzy.

As PJ said, us left-leaners aren't just a bunch of Mad Taxers...

dteowner

March 7th, 2008, 01:23

So, you're saying that a portion of the money legally earned by the rich and corporations should be taken away from them and redistributed to the working poor thru vehicles of your choosing (in this case, a restructuring of the tax code more favorable to lower incomes), yes?

"Because our friends on the left are of the opinion that they have a right to redistribute the money you earn as they see fit."

Thank you very much, my work here is done. ;)

mudsling3

March 7th, 2008, 01:29

I'm voting for FDR. Prime Junta has a resurrection scheme going.

I would doubt check that if I were you.
Wilson-Lusitania-WWI
FDR-Pearl Harbor-WWII
Dubya-911-Iraq

Research done by G. Edward Griffin
Days of Infamy http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling3.pdf

My man Ron Paul is still in the race despite all obsticles. Thanks to the system of delegates, we might have a surprise when the Republican National Convention comes around. Nothing is set yet despite what mis-info MSM is pumping out. check out the exact number here http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml

comprehensive comparison: http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/

StackSmasher

March 7th, 2008, 01:36

I would doubt check that if I were you.
My man Ron Paul is still in the race despite all obsticles. Thanks to the system of delegates, we might have a surprise when the Republican National Convention comes around. Nothing is set yet despite what mis-info MSM is pumping out.
Believe that, I'm showing up on 15 Mar 2008 here in Missouri to help out with the delegate situation. We are not done fighting.

KazikluBey

March 7th, 2008, 01:43

Because our friends on the left are of the opinion that they have a right to redistribute the money you earn as they see fit.
Nice self-slam. You mentioned a post or two above that you're all for redistributing the money people earn the way you see fit...

txa1265

March 7th, 2008, 02:15

I'm voting for FDR. Prime Junta has a resurrection scheme going.

Well, having recently played through Sam & Max 203: Night of the Raving Dead ... there are loads of good possibilities for zombified past politicians ... heck, I'd vote for the 'dream team' ticket of Zombie FDR for some cool ideas and Zombie Reagan to pitch them!

Korplem

March 7th, 2008, 04:04

Well... I'd like to see Paul elected if for no other reason than I think him to be honest. But, if it comes down to Obama vs McCain I'll vote for Obama. McCain scares me. And I don't mean oh-no-another-republican type of scared. A very deep, feral fear. I've never met the man but I feel safe classifying him as a "bad person".

curiously undead

March 7th, 2008, 04:12

*sometime in the future*
when someone or their progeny step outside their home and the meter starts tickin' away the seconds of air they breathe, they might ponder maybe some things should be under public/government control and they might for a moment think maybe those couple of cents a day could have really made a difference in peoples lives who wouldn't otherwise had a chance to overcome what they were born with...but then maybe that extra happy meal a month wasn't worth sacrificing on second thought.

Eliaures

March 7th, 2008, 04:13

We could go the Futurama route and vote for Nixon's head.

http://www.joshuazimmerman.com/blog/images/180px-Richard_Nixon's_Head.jpg

chamr

March 7th, 2008, 07:17

McCain scares me. And I don't mean oh-no-another-republican type of scared. A very deep, feral fear. I've never met the man but I feel safe classifying him as a "bad person".

Care to elaborate? I'm curious, especially with you being a military man and all...

Korplem

March 7th, 2008, 09:05

No, I don't care to. :D

If it makes you feel better I can explain with a quote from Stephen Colbert:

That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 15:16

Walp, if he was in Star Wars, I think I know which character he'd play.

http://www.southcarolinaprimary.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/mccain.jpg
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/dennert/archives/palpatine-girl-scout-cookies.jpg

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 15:56

That's a very loaded way of putting it, BN... especially as it appears that, when we get down to the practical level, we don't really differ all that much. We've agreed that we need some kind of social safety net, some kind of general educational system, some kind of unemployment insurance, and some kind of universal or near-universal health care system. Hell, I suspect we may even agree that the squillion-dollar executive compensation packages we've been seeing recently are a tad on the generous side and we just might want to think of some ways to limit that kind of excess. All that adds up to a pretty big redistributive effect.

Basically, us lefties don't believe that redistribution is a "right" or an end in itself. Moreover, you won't find any mainstream leftie who'd want to completely flatten wealth differentials -- most of us would consider the income distribution of the USA in the 1960's as plumb near ideal.

We just recognize that (1) left to itself, the market tends to concentrate wealth, (2) excessively concentrated wealth leads to extremes of wealth and poverty, and (3) something can be done about (1) and (2) without going all Commie on it -- and, by definition, this "something" is a redistributive effect. I for one think that actually taking money from X and giving it to Y would be an extreme case and a very small part of the whole -- pensions, unemployment benefit, very basic social security. (You're well aware of the "pyramid" nature of the pension system, I'm sure.)

Make the market serve democracy, rather than the other way around, or something like that.

I agree with most of what you are saying. I just don't agree that the government should be directly redistributing wealth. I had a very long, and passionate, discourse with a friend's wife that is a hard core socialist on this subject. She was adamant that simply because I make a good living, I have an obligation to share my earnings with people who don't make as much so that they can 'taste the good life too.'

Now, not to get all religious here, but as a devout Christian, I would agree on a MORAL level. However, I don't think putting it into legal terms is good for the country long term. Legislating morality in most regards is an exercise in failure.

While I agree that in a mixed capitalistic model, wealth can concentrate at the top, I don't think it's as bad many people make it out to be. All levels of income have increased above the rate of inflation since the 60's, though obviously some have increased by significantly more than others. I won't be concerned until it appears that more people are seeing a decline in constant dollar income that are seeing an increase.

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 16:04

Oh really? On the middle class, you say? How do you define "middle class"? And can you link to where Obama says he's raising taxes for these "middle class" folks, please? Thanks.

He has supported and proposed taxes at various times on incomes anywhere north of 6 figures. That's middle class.

NYC aside, the US actually taxes its citizens less than most first world nations. Saying, "cut all the fat first, then raise taxes" is just as extreme as saying "raise taxes first, then look at spending". It's not really an either/or type of thing. Both need to be done.

I would agree that western Europe in particular taxes much higher than the US, but most of those governments are socialist or socialist leaning. As someone against socialism in any of its forms, I don't find their taxation structures a good comparison.

Consider also that compared to 1st world far eastern economies, we are taxed significantly higher and get much less for it.

The rich and corporations get taxed way too little for the benefits they receive from living/operating here. Plain and simple. Or as dte would say: "not rocket science". Something needs to be done about that. And, in fact, it could be seen as "cutting the fat" as a lot of tax breaks and corporate welfare are what I'd consider both a "fat" issue and a "tax" issue.

Corporations provide jobs, so the government has an interest in keeping them solvent. Not saying that all the breaks they get are good, but many, even most, are well justified.

The top 5% of income earners in this country pay 95% of all income taxes. It's not rocket science to realize that they are not being significantly under taxed.

Now, if you want to talk about hedge fund managers that can hide income for years using complex equity systems, I would agree that they need to be taxed on it as the earn it, but the general person in the top 5% of the country's income earners that receives most or all of their income in cash is not under taxed in any way shape or form.

Conversely, the working poor get taxed too much. Something needs to be done about that.

The working poor often pay zero income taxes, and when they pay taxes, the net rate is often less than 10% (Social security and Medicare withstanding). If anything, they are under-taxed.

Personally, I would like to see a flat tax, that starts at whatever we determine the poverty level to be at. No deductions, no loopholes, just a flat rate that everyone pays on each dollar over the poverty level. Not only would we probably collect more for the federal government in this manner, it would actually be fair to both rich and poor.

JemyM

March 7th, 2008, 16:05

http://jemym.no-ip.com/motivators/MPost584-153362890_2890a09585[1].jpg

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 16:06

Nice self-slam. You mentioned a post or two above that you're all for redistributing the money people earn the way you see fit...

I'm not opposed to wealth re-distribution when it occurs naturally (IE people earn it).

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 16:08

McCain has some very obvious anger management issues (which I can't say I blame him with what he has been through). That scares me.

However, he is the lesser of two evils with Hillary. And yes, it sucks that we are reduced to choosing between the lesser of two evils (or idiots as in 2004).

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 16:42

I agree with most of what you are saying. I just don't agree that the government should be directly redistributing wealth. I had a very long, and passionate, discourse with a friend's wife that is a hard core socialist on this subject. She was adamant that simply because I make a good living, I have an obligation to share my earnings with people who don't make as much so that they can 'taste the good life too.'

Personally, I try to avoid moral arguments when discussing anything across political or national divides -- they rarely lead anywhere. They do make sense when discussing something within a group that is known to share the same ethical basis.

What I'm getting at, I guess, is that any political decision involving money -- which means just about all of them -- will have redistributive effects. Some group will always benefit more than some other. Even more, there will almost always be someone who loses too -- Pareto-efficient decisions are wonderful but very rarely realistic options.

I believe that when discussing policies, we should look at (a) costs, including hidden ones (for example, effects on crime, national health, or employment, all of which are very expensive), (b) benefits, and (c) distributive effects. Costs decrease the size of the economic pie, benefits increase it, and distributive effects affect the way it's divided.

I believe that we should look for solutions that increase the size of the pie without simultaneously increasing inequality in the way the pie is sliced. If we can find ways to make the pie bigger *and* divide it more equally, I would prefer that too.

But I would, generally speaking, not support a policy that shrinks the pie, even if it divides it more equally.

While I agree that in a mixed capitalistic model, wealth can concentrate at the top, I don't think it's as bad many people make it out to be. All levels of income have increased above the rate of inflation since the 60's, though obviously some have increased by significantly more than others. I won't be concerned until it appears that more people are seeing a decline in constant dollar income that are seeing an increase.

We'll, we're pretty damn close to that... or already there, if you look at it in one way (see below).

Here's a graph of inflation-adjusted income by quintile from 1979 to 2005:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_JY-rIL8plNM/R2mD8TQkPPI/AAAAAAAAADU/YBpQxKuv7wY/s400/Slide1.JPG

(Bigger version here (http://bp0.blogger.com/_JY-rIL8plNM/R2mD8TQkPPI/AAAAAAAAADU/YBpQxKuv7wY/s1600-h/Slide1.JPG).)

The thing is, the number of hours worked has gone up by ~15% over the same time (sorry, I couldn't find the statistic for exactly this interval -- the number is 20% from 1970 to 2002). That means that Americans are working harder in order to maintain the same real income -- income per hour has dropped very significantly.

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 16:46

I would agree that western Europe in particular taxes much higher than the US, but most of those governments are socialist or socialist leaning. As someone against socialism in any of its forms, I don't find their taxation structures a good comparison.

Socialism means a system where the means of production are socially owned (i.e., run by the state). No European country is socialist in this sense. They're social-democratic welfare states: the state provides infrastructure and services financed through taxation.

It's a common misconception, though, especially among Americans.

dteowner

March 7th, 2008, 17:02

Interesting that the largest increase came during the Clinton administration.

Those mean spirited democrats are just taking care of their rich friends while the working class suffers... ;)

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 17:12

Isn't it, though? That rather debunks the notion of the Dems as pinko-Commie socialist rob-the-rich redistributors, dunnit?

From where I'm at, the big difference between Dems and Reps in economic policy nowadays is that the Dems balance their budgets.

JemyM

March 7th, 2008, 17:25

I would agree that western Europe in particular taxes much higher than the US, but most of those governments are socialist or socialist leaning. As someone against socialism in any of its forms, I don't find their taxation structures a good comparison.

Uhm... What? Do not confuse Social Democrats and Social Liberalism with Socialism, their philosophies are radically different. Most countries in Europe leans between social liberalism and new liberalism, meaning "equal opportunity" rather than "no ownership".

Historically, Marx legacy urged workers to unite to abolish the class systems which denied the majority of the European citizens to vote. Unlike Lenin-Marxism and the Russian Revolution the European Marxist revolution was lead by revisionists rather than revolutionists which means they used politics to get a friendly solution to abolish the old hierarchy. Once the class system was abolished, the goals of socialism pretty much dissolved.

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 18:10

We'll, we're pretty damn close to that... or already there, if you look at it in one way (see below).

Here's a graph of inflation-adjusted income by quintile from 1979 to 2005:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_JY-rIL8plNM/R2mD8TQkPPI/AAAAAAAAADU/YBpQxKuv7wY/s400/Slide1.JPG

(Bigger version here (http://bp0.blogger.com/_JY-rIL8plNM/R2mD8TQkPPI/AAAAAAAAADU/YBpQxKuv7wY/s1600-h/Slide1.JPG).)

The thing is, the number of hours worked has gone up by ~15% over the same time (sorry, I couldn't find the statistic for exactly this interval -- the number is 20% from 1970 to 2002). That means that Americans are working harder in order to maintain the same real income -- income per hour has dropped very significantly.

The problem with using raw numbers is that they will always skew to make it look like the rich are increasing much more. If you look at the rate of change, rather than just the level of income, the disparity, while still there, is not as bad.

And yes, we are working more, but it's at all levels, not just the bottom level.

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 18:11

Socialism means a system where the means of production are socially owned (i.e., run by the state). No European country is socialist in this sense. They're social-democratic welfare states: the state provides infrastructure and services financed through taxation.

It's a common misconception, though, especially among Americans.

Very true, when I say socialism, I certainly mean what you refer to as social-democratic welfare

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 18:13

From where I'm at, the big difference between Dems and Reps in economic policy nowadays is that the Dems balance their budgets.

I would disagree with that because even when we claim to have had a balanced budget in the 90's, we didn't as we didn't account for the liability increase in social security and medicare. And don't forget, Clinton may have signed the budgets, but it was a Republican Congress then! (though they seem to have forgotten that mindset!)

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 18:15

Uhm... What? Do not confuse Social Democrats and Social Liberalism with Socialism, their philosophies are radically different. Most countries in Europe leans between social liberalism and new liberalism, meaning "equal opportunity" rather than "no ownership".

Fair enough. The problem is that I don't see equal opportunity, I see equal handouts.

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 18:17

I would disagree with that because even when we claim to have had a balanced budget in the 90's, we didn't as we didn't account for the liability increase in social security and medicare. And don't forget, Clinton may have signed the budgets, but it was a Republican Congress then! (though they seem to have forgotten that mindset!)

The liability increase in social security is quite manageable even with the current numbers, despite much hot air to the contrary. I could dig you up the numbers, but I'm tired. Medicare is different.

But if you like, I can amend that to "come closer to balancing their budgets." :p

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 18:17

Fair enough. The problem is that I don't see equal opportunity, I see equal handouts.

How familiar are you with the European system, out of curiosity?

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 18:34

The liability increase in social security is quite manageable even with the current numbers, despite much hot air to the contrary. I could dig you up the numbers, but I'm tired. Medicare is different.

But if you like, I can amend that to "come closer to balancing their budgets." :p

I would disagree with the you on social security, though Medicare is certainly the much bigger problem.

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 18:35

How familiar are you with the European system, out of curiosity?

Reasonably. In the early part of my career, I did research on sovereign debt for several Western European countries, so I had to really read up on the economics systems of them.

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 18:39

Interesting. Could you be a bit more specific, then, about what you mean by "hand-outs?"

blatantninja

March 7th, 2008, 18:55

Well, a few short ones:

1) so-called Universal healthcare. I agree that accessible healthcare does help to promote productivity, however, I am against government run healthcare. In reality, for more costly or advanced healthcare, it often turns into healthcare rationing. A good example is cancer treatment in the UK vs. the US. Despite the Uk having Universal care, the average wait time to being treatment is longer and the survival rate lower (if you have a WSJ subscription there was a great article on this a few months ago).

2) Unemployment benefits that last into the years

3) Government run pension plans that have extremely low retirement ages (in the 50's)

I suppose you could say those aren't specifically handouts, but those are some of the big expenses that come to mind.

I'm probably a bit jaded as two of my best friends are British and work as securities traders. They get hammered in taxes, while a large percentage of the British population are receiving subsidies in various forms from the government.

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 19:11

1) so-called Universal healthcare. I agree that accessible healthcare does help to promote productivity, however, I am against government run healthcare. In reality, for more costly or advanced healthcare, it often turns into healthcare rationing. A good example is cancer treatment in the UK vs. the US. Despite the Uk having Universal care, the average wait time to being treatment is longer and the survival rate lower (if you have a WSJ subscription there was a great article on this a few months ago).

Yup, the UK health care system is pretty bad. But then the French and Swiss systems, for example, are possibly the best in the world -- and they cost a lot less than the American one.

In other words, your evidence doesn't support your claim -- that it "often turns into healthcare rationing." Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't -- and a private system like the American one certainly turns into healthcare rationing; namely, those who can afford it, get it; those who can't, don't. Therefore, IMO it would be better to ask how we can manage a universal healthcare system so that the costs don't spin out of control *and* it doesn't become a rationing system. This can be done, and has been done in much of Europe.

2) Unemployment benefits that last into the years

For example in...?

In Finland, unemployment benefit lasts for a maximum of 500 days. It amounts to a whopping 24 euros per day, unless you've been paying for unemployment insurance (which is fully tax-deductible); in that case, it starts out close to your salary and then runs down.

3) Government run pension plans that have extremely low retirement ages (in the 50's)

Such as in...?

In Finland the retirement age is 65, with some exceptions made for people who become unemployed at over 60. Retirement age is in the 50's only for some exceptional professions, such as firefighters or airline pilots.

I suppose you could say those aren't specifically handouts, but those are some of the big expenses that come to mind.

It's also not how things actually work in most of Europe.

I'm probably a bit jaded as two of my best friends are British and work as securities traders. They get hammered in taxes, while a large percentage of the British population are receiving subsidies in various forms from the government.

It sounds like your examples are from the UK, which is rather different from most European countries in some very significant ways.

zahratustra

March 7th, 2008, 19:54

So, you're saying that a portion of the money legally earned by the rich and corporations should be taken away from them and redistributed to the working poor thru vehicles of your choosing (in this case, a restructuring of the tax code more favorable to lower incomes), yes?
Not so long ago you have been bemoaning"death of the Middle Class" dt and yet you are you seems to be opposed to anything which could possibly slow down or reverse this trend?

You picked a bad example blatantninja. I have said before that in case of health care (and few other fields) UK is very much Europe's odd-man-out.

dteowner

March 7th, 2008, 22:26

zahratustra

March 7th, 2008, 22:46

"At some point, it should become painfully obvious to corporate America that the current system is flawed..."

:mwahaha:

Prime Junta

March 7th, 2008, 22:49

While I am concerned about the death of the middle class, I don't think it's the job, duty, nor right of our government to unilaterally attempt to "fix" that problem. At some point, it should become painfully obvious to corporate America that the current system is flawed, similar to when Henry Ford realized that well-paid workers quickly became customers.

Have you thought this one through? 'Cuz any way I look at it, I run into the dilemma of the commons.

For sure, American industry would benefit if everyone paid their workers more, so they could afford to buy more. But any individual corporation paying less would get an advantage over the others. It becomes a race to the bottom.

Henry Ford was a special case -- because he *invented* modern mass production. That gave his operation such an enormous competitive advantage that he could *afford* to build that famous business model of his on top of it.

The market alone won't do it -- especially not today, when it costs virtually nothing to have something shipped to your doorstep from wherever it was cheapest to make, and you have all the bargaining power of Wal-Mart behind you to ensure you do get the cheapest possible price on it.

Corporate social responsibility won't do it. Corporations are supposed to be selfish and evil -- they wouldn't survive if they weren't. We in our capacity as consumers see to that.

The thing is that it's up to us in our capacity as citizens to be the counterweight to this effect. As citizens, we run the state -- or ought to, anyway. And as citizens, we set the rules by which the corporations play their ruthless game of market competition.

You think it's naive to believe that a state could work this way? Think again: such states have existed, and still exist. What's *really* naive is to think that corporations will magically "realize" what the problem is, and solve it through "social responsibility."

chamr

March 7th, 2008, 23:12

You think it's naive to believe that a state could work this way? Think again: such states have existed, and still exist. What's *really* naive is to think that corporations will magically "realize" what the problem is, and solve it through "social responsibility."

Indeed.

And all this talk about liberals wanting to have the government redistribute wealth is hilarious. By nature of having a government to which you pay taxes, there will be wealth re-distribution. Duh. It's not a liberal idea. The point is to redistribute it more fairly. As PJ's already pointed out, it goes way beyond the simple tax bracket scheme. There are all the other services that government provides (i.e. welfare, Medicare, the military, basic infrastructure such as roads, etc.) and to whom they provide them. Then there's the related affects on other essential services the government does not directly provide, but regulates (i.e. health care, insurance, home loans, fuel prices, etc.).

Look at it this way: what is so wrong in living in a society that asks its better off to contribute a bit more so that the poor can live a better life? What in the heck is wrong with that? What's left over after providing life's necessities for someone who's poor is tiny compared to the rich. What's wrong with asking the rich to do their part as a successful member of a society so that society as a whole can be that much better? It's not like the government is asking them to donate a kidney or give up their first born. To me, it's the basic pact you make with a modern, civil society that you play a part in contributing to that society in a positive way. I certainly don't want to live in a country that's just all about "me!me!me!".

dteowner

March 7th, 2008, 23:39

dteowner

March 7th, 2008, 23:48

Think again: such states have existed, and still exist. What's *really* naive is to think that corporations will magically "realize" what the problem is, and solve it through "social responsibility."It's got nothing to do with social responsibility. Corporations aren't in the business of social responsibility. It's self interest thru and thru to analyze your market and seek ways to increase it. Ford didn't do it out of social responsibility. He realized he'd make more money by increasing his customer base. Will today's American corporations be smart enough to figure it out before it's too late? I've predicted elsewhere that we're headed for rebellion, so I think my opinion is pretty clear. I'd still rather risk swirling down the toilet while doing it right than the alternative.

Corwin

March 8th, 2008, 04:27

Our nation is founded on being rewarded for hard work. I have absolutely no incentive to work an extra hour or get additional education if I know going in that the extra money I'll earn (aka reward) will be taken from me and given to some layabout who'd rather hit the bong than make an effort to better himself. And while we're at it, if the top 5% of earners pay 95% of the income taxes, just how much of "their part" are they not doing? Should we just let them pay it all? How could anyone call that fair?

I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle is saying we shouldn't pay for basic services. I have a real problem handing over my hard-earned rewards for another Maplethorpe or turfgrass research in Beaver, WV courtesy of Senator Byrd. If you want to support "the arts" via Maplethorpe, go buy a picture--I'll buy shoegaze cds if that's OK with you. The government has no place in the equation.

Well said!! I've never minded helping the needy, but I've seen FAR too much wastage where the so called poor get more than the middle class. I won't work to support someone's drug or booze habit and that's where much of so called 'welfare' goes!! There's no easy solution, but slugging the so called 'rich', certainly isn't the answer either. Most 'rich' people have assets they've worked hard for rather than cash. They are asset rich and cash poor. Having a few hundred K tied up in a house might make you rich to some, but it doesn't put food on your table!!

March 8th, 2008, 06:52

I wouldn't say a few hundred K in your house makes you rich, thats middle class. Its certainly not the top 5% of earners they're refering to paying all the taxes, which in the US would be those earning more than $150,000k a year. The financial services industry doesn't really consider you wealthy until you have over $1m in liquid assets.

He has supported and proposed taxes at various times on incomes anywhere north of 6 figures. That's middle class.

Households making six figures are in the top 20% of earners in the US, describing them as middle class is somewhat disingenuous.

(all figures rounded from US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06.html)

curiously undead

March 8th, 2008, 08:11

percentages are the unfair "hard work" that some of you fail to see. the rich should pay less % taxes while being handed loans with the lowest interest % and also have wealth that generates more wealth through investment even substantial gains through near zero risk while the poor should pay the same the % taxes or more, be offered the highest rate loans and you can forget about having any savings to invest?!? if anyone can say collecting interest is hard work, they they must be a trust fund baby themselves...

hard work does not equate to wealth, at least not of the kind that pays bills. i think some people forget besides 'regular slavery' this country was founded on indentured slaves as well, whom i'm sure many were able to climb their way out of, and throughout the 1800's many of the poor families of america could make it to success by huge handouts through the homesteading of this country...free land hasn't been available for quite some time though and the american dream has been slim pickens for quite some time i think. still i have hope though...not so much though if either monster hillary or mccain lies ahead.

Prime Junta

March 8th, 2008, 10:51

Our nation is founded on being rewarded for hard work. I have absolutely no incentive to work an extra hour or get additional education if I know going in that the extra money I'll earn (aka reward) will be taken from me and given to some layabout who'd rather hit the bong than make an effort to better himself.

Absolutely. Which is why you don't have a 100% marginal tax rate. Currently the highest marginal tax rate is 39.5%.

And while we're at it, if the top 5% of earners pay 95% of the income taxes, just how much of "their part" are they not doing? Should we just let them pay it all? How could anyone call that fair?

If that is the case (and I wasn't able to verify it; can you?), there is a better explanation for it than unfair tax burden: that the top 5% is *earning* a disproportionate share, and therefore they also pay disproportionately high taxes.

(Also, before you trot it out, the leftie solution isn't simply to take all that money from the rich and give it to the poor.)

I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle is saying we shouldn't pay for basic services. I have a real problem handing over my hard-earned rewards for another Maplethorpe or turfgrass research in Beaver, WV courtesy of Senator Byrd. If you want to support "the arts" via Maplethorpe, go buy a picture--I'll buy shoegaze cds if that's OK with you. The government has no place in the equation.

Again, all the turfgrasses, Mapplethorpes, and bridges to nowhere amount to $20 billion out of a budget of $1 trillion. (The NEA budget is a piddling $170 million.)

It's a distraction. Getting rid of all that would make you feel better, I'm sure, but it wouldn't do a damn thing to the big picture. In fact, I have a suspicion much of them may be there specifically for political reasons -- to give something for people of your political persuasion to be righteously angry about so they won't bother trying to figure out what's going on where it really matters.

Prime Junta

March 8th, 2008, 11:18

It's got nothing to do with social responsibility. Corporations aren't in the business of social responsibility. It's self interest thru and thru to analyze your market and seek ways to increase it. Ford didn't do it out of social responsibility. He realized he'd make more money by increasing his customer base. Will today's American corporations be smart enough to figure it out before it's too late? I've predicted elsewhere that we're headed for rebellion, so I think my opinion is pretty clear. I'd still rather risk swirling down the toilet while doing it right than the alternative.

The point is that Ford could do it, because he was the only one who knew how to mass-produce cars. His margins were big enough that he could afford to pay his workers enough that they, too, could buy them.

This is not the situation today.

For example, consider Wal-Mart.

It has two characteristic features in the way it operates:

(1) It keeps costs down,
(2) It drives extremely hard bargains with suppliers.

Point (1) puts downwards pressure on wages it pays to its own employees, and point (2) puts downwards pressure on wages in every company that sells its stuff in Wal-Mart.

So, suppose that the Wal-Mart board had a brilliant idea: "Hey, if the people who work for us, and for our suppliers, earned more, we could sell them more stuff! More business! Yay! Let's double everybody's wages, and offer to pay our suppliers more if they raise their wages commensurately!"

Now, suppose K-Mart stuck to its current business model, which is essentially the same as Wal-Mart's -- they're just not _quite_ as good at it.

The upshot would be that stuff at Wal-Mart would cost more than stuff at K-Mart. Which means that the folks who benefited from the wage raises at Wal-Mart and its suppliers would spend it at K-Mart, and drive Wal-Mart out of business. Boo!

The only way this could work is if Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and every other major American corporation decided to raise their salaries by the same amount at the same time, with very little cheating.

Can you see this happening of its own accord? I can't. On the other hand, I can see it happening if it was legislated and enforced. That's what democracy is for, y'know -- setting the rules by which the market plays.

Edit and postscript: the funny thing is, between the 1950's and the 1970's, the American economy did work pretty much in the way that I don't see happening -- that is, GM, Ford, Chrysler, AT&T, Standard Steel, etc. got together with the Teamsters, Auto Workers, Steel Workers etc., and hammered together agreements about wage raises and such -- "raising wages at the same time." This system broke down in the 1970's and from there on out, under the impact of globalization and ICT, which made markets enormously more competitive at all levels.

So what you're advocating is a return to this "post-WW2" model of democratic capitalism. Which is all well and good, except that the structural reasons for its breakdown are still here. You can't un-make this omelet and get the eggs back. You'll need to find some other, new solution.

dteowner

March 8th, 2008, 16:19

Absolutely. Which is why you don't have a 100% marginal tax rate. Currently the highest marginal tax rate is 39.5%.True, however, because of the progressive brackets and withholding schedules, it's entirely possible (and actually happens regularly if two professionals get married) to get a raise and end up with a smaller net income. That's a pretty strong disincentive. The obvious answer to that is a flat tax, but I don't see that happening since that would require a tax increase for the poor and a break for the rich in order to collect the same amount. Not to mention that "simplified tax code" will never happen anyway since it would put millions of accountants out of a job.

As for Wal-Mart, there's a way around your (admittedly valid) problem. The extra wages have to be given as Wal-Mart credit rather than straight pay. In this way, the employees get additional value which is promptly reinvested in the company. That's easier to do with a place like Wal-Mart than Wally's Widget Emporium, so clearly the concept needs additional work.

The real problem is that our post-WW2 structure doesn't hold up on an international stage. We've been extremely successful with our insular system, but the global economy will seek to pull us back to the average (and that's not a political statement). We've survived a few waves. 30 years ago, the Japanese were going to kill our economy. Our standard of living dropped back a little, but Japan's came up much faster. Wave survived. Next up was Mexico. That one's still a little up in the air, although you see localized pockets (around the transplant industries) where the same effect has happened. Right now it's China and India. That one's going to be tougher because there's so darn many of them. It's going to take a long time to increase the standard of living of 2 billion people. Possibly too long for us to maintain ours. Eventually, Africa is going to get its act together, and that will be another wave.

It's structural problems like this that has me convinced the US is in real long-term trouble. It would practically take fascist control to successfully navigate the challenges of the global economy while maintaining our inflated standard of living. Probably more of the same for us to navigate our own internal problems. With our wishy-washy, change-direction-every-4-years political system, I really doubt we'll be able to make the tough decisions needed. But since I'm not really interested in chucking democracy for a good dictatorship (or a good Communist Revolution), I'm back to like I said earlier: swirl down the toilet and hope for a pleasant surprise.

Prime Junta

March 8th, 2008, 18:16

The real problem is that our post-WW2 structure doesn't hold up on an international stage. We've been extremely successful with our insular system, but the global economy will seek to pull us back to the average (and that's not a political statement). We've survived a few waves. 30 years ago, the Japanese were going to kill our economy. Our standard of living dropped back a little, but Japan's came up much faster. Wave survived. Next up was Mexico. That one's still a little up in the air, although you see localized pockets (around the transplant industries) where the same effect has happened. Right now it's China and India. That one's going to be tougher because there's so darn many of them. It's going to take a long time to increase the standard of living of 2 billion people. Possibly too long for us to maintain ours. Eventually, Africa is going to get its act together, and that will be another wave.

The real biggie, though, is that with China and India zooming up, we're hitting some hard limits in the amount of energy we can produce. It is physically impossible for them to hit the same ecological footprint per capita as the USA, or even Europe. There may be ways around this, but it's clear that China and India cannot bootstrap themselves up the same way Japan or South Korea did. And if they stall, there will be real trouble.

It's structural problems like this that has me convinced the US is in real long-term trouble. It would practically take fascist control to successfully navigate the challenges of the global economy while maintaining our inflated standard of living. Probably more of the same for us to navigate our own internal problems. With our wishy-washy, change-direction-every-4-years political system, I really doubt we'll be able to make the tough decisions needed. But since I'm not really interested in chucking democracy for a good dictatorship (or a good Communist Revolution), I'm back to like I said earlier: swirl down the toilet and hope for a pleasant surprise.

It's funny how far we agree -- your analysis is pretty much exactly how I see it. We only diverge at the very end, when it's time to think about solutions. I believe that we can find ways to address these structural problems through creative political solutions -- make democracy do what the market can't -- whereas you prefer to "swirl down the toilet and hope for a pleasant surprise."

It looks to me that you've pretty much painted yourself into a corner: your political philosophy doesn't allow you to think of any ways out of these structural problems. You would have to scrap some of your fundamental assumptions of what can and cannot be done through political or governmental action -- with, of course, a risk of still getting it wrong. I can understand your unwillingness to do so, but I still think it's a shame -- there's got to be something better out there than just circling the drain and waiting for the ax to fall, to mix a few metaphors.

zahratustra

March 8th, 2008, 18:51

I would like an explanation too dt: how come shitcreek seems to you an option more than a change of the course??

dteowner

March 8th, 2008, 22:57

I know ways out of the structural problems. I expect the Republicans do as well--there's a few people running around this world smarter than me. ;)

It's not so much the political philosophy that traps me as my utter dismay with the practical reality of our government. For 40 years give or take, most everything they've touched has been botched, half-assed, or complete disaster. They bicker endlessly about trivial issues while blowing smoke up our butts about the real structural problems with the system. The political system is all about self-perpetuation, with strong disincentives for real change. With so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can't believe that they'll manage to get it right this time. The politicians will fiddle as Washington burns...

While I favor many Republican policies, they get my vote for promoting smaller government. Or at least they used to promote it. These days, they just don't promote larger government like the Democrats. A smaller government has less reach to touch (and thereby screw up) the nation. A smaller government is less likely to have an impact (predictably negative) on me. Like I mentioned elsewhere, if the Libertarians weren't nuckin' futz, I might vote that way.

We're clinging to a smoldering telephone pole in the middle of a lava pit. Chances are pretty good doing nothing will result in death eventually. Changing course means we go extra crispy even sooner.

vanedor

March 8th, 2008, 23:32

For 40 years give or take, most everything they've touched has been botched, half-assed, or complete disaster.

Funny,

Curiously, these last 40 years have been the most prosperous years humanity has ever known. So perhaps the governments have not been *that* bad?

Corwin

March 8th, 2008, 23:39

While politicians are in control, gov't will always be bad!! What's needed, is a Periclean democracy, but that's most unlikely!!

vanedor

March 8th, 2008, 23:52

While politicians are in control, gov't will always be bad!! What's needed, is a Periclean democracy, but that's most unlikely!!

You should look at your history and look at what happened to athen during that period before you wish its return.

And by the way, who was pericles if not a politician? :P

Prime Junta

March 9th, 2008, 00:31

@dte, the thing that puzzles me is the way you cling to your belief that government is inherently bad -- against the evidence. There are a quite a few rather well-run governments around the world; some of them have been that way for quite a long time -- and in the global scale, the American one isn't anywhere near the bottom of the pack.

In other words, it's empirically demonstrable that governments *can* work pretty well. So why not try to fix the one you have rather than declaring it a complete loss and going into a sulk?

Corwin

March 9th, 2008, 01:49

Perhaps I need to define 'politician'. They are the people for whom politics are paramount, rather than the good of the people they are supposed to represent and/or the country. Politicians are more worried about getting re-elected than they are about making a correct ( and sometimes, ANY ) decision. They toe the party line, have no 'mind' of their own and usually lie as often as they think they can get away with it. What a country needs, are leaders and statesmen who have the best interests of their country and its people at heart, rather than their own personal gain!! Unfortunately, there are very few such people, and rarely do they get elected, or reach positions of power. Compromise, and 'playing the game' are far more prevalent!! Am I totally cynical about politicians? You bet I am!!

zahratustra

March 9th, 2008, 02:11

But, depending on the source, Pericles was ALL of above!

Corwin

March 9th, 2008, 02:21

The problem is, that all sources contain a bias. I've read a great deal about Pericles and the time period ( my major with my first degree was Ancient and Mediaeval History ) and I still like what he accomplished for Athens. It's called the golden age for a reason. Can a good leader be popular? Certainly not with everyone, but popular leaders rarely make good ones!!

curiously undead

March 9th, 2008, 04:33

pericles was a pagan though
at least he had something right eh;)

Prime Junta

March 9th, 2008, 10:22

Let's not forget that Pericles administered what is by modern standards a medium-sized town -- about 200,000 people at its height, of whom about 50,000 were free men (i.e. citizens). I can think of many towns of comparable and larger size today that are as well run as Athens was at that time.

GothicGothicness

March 9th, 2008, 11:24

me, I would be best.

JemyM

March 18th, 2008, 18:14

Our nation is founded on being rewarded for hard work.

Your nation is founded on everyone being a sales person, not society building. "Hard work" have very little to do with your living standard over there, it's rather what start you had, how well you can sell yourself and your skill in competing with others.

I have absolutely no incentive to work an extra hour or get additional education if I know going in that the extra money I'll earn (aka reward) will be taken from me and given to some layabout who'd rather hit the bong than make an effort to better himself.

It's because you know that you can feed yourself but you have no education on how social issues effects a society and the individual. Your analysis "one who rather hit the bong than to make an effort to better himself" give that away.

JemyM

March 18th, 2008, 18:39

Well said!! I've never minded helping the needy, but I've seen FAR too much wastage where the so called poor get more than the middle class. I won't work to support someone's drug or booze habit and that's where much of so called 'welfare' goes!! There's no easy solution, but slugging the so called 'rich', certainly isn't the answer either. Most 'rich' people have assets they've worked hard for rather than cash. They are asset rich and cash poor. Having a few hundred K tied up in a house might make you rich to some, but it doesn't put food on your table!!

You use some popular myths to protect your perspective, which have been around since ancient Egypt if not earlier. In social theory what you are doing here is known as "anomie".

Let's examine these myths:
1. People who have it bad are bad people
What you are doing here is demonizing "them". You have in your mind created a symbolic archetype of a "welfare receiver" that you evoke within your head whenever you hear the word "welfare". In your version they are "drug addicts", in the past they have been "dirty, uneducated farmers", "useless Negroes", "godless pagans" etc. This is pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thing is, it's more likely for an unlucky person to do drugs and it's more likely for someone who is unsuccessful to be unlucky. It's for the lack of social protection that "bad statistics" such as crime, drug abuse and other similar issues are higher in countries with low welfare than in countries with high welfare.

2. Rich have worked hard for their cash
There are several ways for a person to get rich. Hard work is not a guarantee to get rich and being rich is not necessary the result of hard work. Usually you have to have money to get money and you are more likely to get a good education if you have a safe and protected upbringing. Also there are numerous genetic advantages which can also get one rich such as looks, charisma, gender, race or a high intellect.

The United States are repeating the mistakes made by Great Britain during the enlightenment and the signs that it wont last much longer is already obvious. The higher the corruption, poverty, crime etc are the stronger the demand for doing something about it will be. Locking everyone up wont do it either, it's estimated that 1% of all Americans is currently in jail and that's extremely high. The society is basically a living organism and social issues spread itself like cancer. The more people who fall under a positive living standard the faster the problems grow.

blatantninja

March 18th, 2008, 18:41

It's because you know that you can feed yourself but you have no education on how a society is built.

That good feeling you get from 'helping' society only goes so far when the monetary reward is taken away.

Squeek

March 18th, 2008, 18:44

JemyM

March 18th, 2008, 19:45

That good feeling you get from 'helping' society only goes so far when the monetary reward is taken away.

Most people who live up in a healthy society never realize where their taxmoney goes because they have never experienced a society without a working welfare system. Historically the welfare system was a response to the living conditions in the United Kingdom during the industrial revolution. This was an era in which the freedom was king, but it was also an era in which young children starved to death on the streets. The conditions were so severe that both liberals and conservatives urged the state to do something about it. The welfare system and public school were the result.

Living in a healthy society is the reward, and them with higher income do have better benefits than them with low income and to increase income you usually have to work hard. A welfare system pretty much only keep people on the streets and get them back up from rock bottom. It's not meant to replace the need for a real job.

JemyM

March 18th, 2008, 19:59

So I suppose the concept of hard work is better understood in Sweden?
I once toured a factory in Sweden. It was a Monday, and I got there around noon. The workers stopped, but very few of them ate lunch. Most of them found a place to curl up and go to sleep.
Embarrassed, my tour guide explained that those workers needed the sleep because they'd all been drinking over the weekend.

:rotfl:
I have seen people with a hangover on Monday, but I have never seen someone go to sleep at working hours...

Sweden have a strong conservative socialist tradition in which hard work is not only a virtue, you should preferably have a physical job. Having no job at all does not make you into an accepted person, not even if you are a student.

blatantninja

March 18th, 2008, 20:01

Most people who live up in a healthy society never realize where their taxmoney goes because they have never experienced a society without a working welfare system.

Having a working welfare system would be a nice start. I would define a working welfare system as one that provides the basic needs to those that literally have no means of providing it to themselves and provides a mechanism to get everyone else back in the work force.

From what I have seen of Europe, no country there has a working welfare system. Unemployment benefits last far too long and far too many qualify for benefits that could take care of themselves.

A welfare system pretty much only keep people on the streets and get them back up from rock bottom. It's not meant to replace the need for a real job.

Agreed, unfortunately, there will always be those that exploit welfare systems and like so long as politicians can get elected by promising handouts, it will continue.

I prefer a very limited government. I think a basic social safety net is needed if for no other reason it removes some of the friction of changing jobs, which is good for economic growth, but it can go too far and retard economic growth.

JemyM

March 18th, 2008, 20:31

Having a working welfare system would be a nice start. I would define a working welfare system as one that provides the basic needs to those that literally have no means of providing it to themselves and provides a mechanism to get everyone else back in the work force.
From what I have seen of Europe, no country there has a working welfare system. Unemployment benefits last far too long and far too many qualify for benefits that could take care of themselves.

Agreed, unfortunately, there will always be those that exploit welfare systems and like so long as politicians can get elected by promising handouts, it will continue.
I prefer a very limited government. I think a basic social safety net is needed if for no other reason it removes some of the friction of changing jobs, which is good for economic growth, but it can go too far and retard economic growth.

There's a balance between creating a strong safety web while still rewarding them who have a job, some countries are better at it than others. I am personally a critic against Sweden's previous system that had taken things a bit too far. It's worth not discarding the idea due to bad apples though. Every society have parasites, but it does not reduce the risk of oneself ending up as one.

dteowner

March 18th, 2008, 22:16

It's because you know that you can feed yourself but you have no education on how social issues effects a society and the individual. Your analysis "one who rather hit the bong than to make an effort to better himself" give that away.You don't know me from Adam, so to make a statement about what I know and what I "have no education on" is foolish. Similarly, to assume that I think all people that have it bad are bad people based on that comment is errant extrapolation. I never said that the "bongers" were the entire set of "people that have it bad". In fact, I expect that they are a rather small subset of "PTHIB". That doesn't change nor lessen my point.

JemyM

March 18th, 2008, 23:38

You don't know me from Adam, so to make a statement about what I know and what I "have no education on" is foolish. Similarly, to assume that I think all people that have it bad are bad people based on that comment is errant extrapolation. I never said that the "bongers" were the entire set of "people that have it bad". In fact, I expect that they are a rather small subset of "PTHIB". That doesn't change nor lessen my point.

The way you said it was that you feel bad about paying for welfare because some useless person gets a free life out of your hard work. I have just met one person who I would say is just in it for the free ride, but I have to say in his favor that he would never get a job even if he tried. I have met several people who are fully supported by a welfare handout and if you would ask them if they are happy with their free time most would say no. When you go on a government handout you have lots of social and cultural pressure and you will not feel the same dignity when you cannot support yourself. You actually feel like a waste, even if you belong to the group that really seems like the right people to get the support. When you cannot support yourself you feel useless. There's actually a problem with getting people who been unemployed for a longer time to believe in themselves again because they lost faith in their own capabilities. Many claim that they feel like prisoners in their own homes. Having a job makes you feel like you have a value and that's something a person need to feel good about themselves.

dteowner

March 19th, 2008, 00:38

When you go on a government handout you have lots of social and cultural pressureThis is an unfounded and unsupported assumption. I am of the opinion that it is also untrue.

I have no problem with a proper social support system. As BN pointed out, even ignoring the social implications, it makes good economic sense. The problem is that the current US system is not a proper social support system. As with most US government social programs, it's an unwieldy bureaucracy rife with inefficiencies and abuse. Although the politicians on both sides of the aisle like to play the game, "welfare reform" doesn't automatically have to mean people stop getting money. I still don't understand why we have basic social services that can't be delivered (park maintainance is a particular one that I don't get) because we can't afford it yet the same government can hand checks to people to sit at home. We're not displacing any current workers because the job is simply not being done right now. Either you get some value for the welfare check you hand out via "free labor", or you take welfare out of the equation entirely and shift the government funding out of welfare and into public works manpower. A similar model worked pretty darn well for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Why couldn't we do a similar thing with folks in jail? "Paying your debt to society" takes on a new light. The criminal gets to save a little money (which might help put a dent in recidivism) and society gets some "free labor". Everybody wins, right?

Corwin

March 19th, 2008, 01:30

Sounds fair to me. Work for the Dole as we call it, is not a popular concept here either, but I think it's a good idea if a person is physically capable. Now, what has all this to do with picking a President!! :)

JemyM

March 19th, 2008, 01:33

This is an unfounded and unsupported assumption. I am of the opinion that it is also untrue.

I cannot agree it's unsupported, it's actually well known within both psychology and sociology. There's an entire perspective in psychology based on the cleft between what you think you are and what you think you must be, and there's a theory within sociology which I believe was called anomie (which I might confuse with another sociological term but im a bit too tired to check it up atm).
Depression, self denial and even suicide due to long-term unemployment is a growing problem in Sweden and there's currently a great effort on solving it (the background to why this happened in the first place is another story).

I have no problem with a proper social support system. As BN pointed out, even ignoring the social implications, it makes good economic sense. The problem is that the current US system is not a proper social support system. As with most US government social programs, it's an unwieldy bureaucracy rife with inefficiencies and abuse. Although the politicians on both sides of the aisle like to play the game, "welfare reform" doesn't automatically have to mean people stop getting money. I still don't understand why we have basic social services that can't be delivered (park maintainance is a particular one that I don't get) because we can't afford it yet the same government can hand checks to people to sit at home. We're not displacing any current workers because the job is simply not being done right now. Either you get some value for the welfare check you hand out via "free labor", or you take welfare out of the equation entirely and shift the government funding out of welfare and into public works manpower. A similar model worked pretty darn well for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Why couldn't we do a similar thing with folks in jail? "Paying your debt to society" takes on a new light. The criminal gets to save a little money (which might help put a dent in recidivism) and society gets some "free labor". Everybody wins, right?

I confess I have no good insight in the exact structure of the US social service system.

blatantninja

March 19th, 2008, 19:54

This is an unfounded and unsupported assumption. I am of the opinion that it is also untrue.

Realize that Jemy is in Sweden (Correct?). So that may well be the case here.

In the US where we have a more more segregated (not legally, just culturally speaking), in some cases that is true, and in other it is not.

blatantninja

March 19th, 2008, 19:55

I confess I have no good insight in the exact structure of the US social service system.

Are you familiar with the term FUBAR? Or perhaps SNAFU?

Ammon777

March 24th, 2008, 13:11

Obama or Hillary.

I will vote democrat in general election.

However i would much rather vote for Obama.

"trim welfare" is a solution for what? So you get off on trimming social nets that ACTUALLY HELP people that cant help themselves? people that got dealt bad cards in life, LIKE SCHIZOPHRENICS and other people that got ****ED. how about trim nuclear missiles instead? How about ****ing trim 3 trillion wasted dollars debt from a stupid war? huh? A war that we will lose, anyway.

Ammon777

March 24th, 2008, 14:05

And you complain about working and paying taxes -- while the part of your taxes is really small fraction of your money that gets deligated to people on welfare -- whether they are on drugs and alcohol or not -- lots of schizophrenics are on drugs, but I am not one of them; that doesnt mean they dont deserve a right to get those checks.

I am willing to bet that a LOT more of your personal division of the tax money is dedicated to a war in Iraq, military equipment and training, research grants, into corporate pockets, into structural management, and lost in quagmires of corruption -- all of that is a LOT MORE PART OF YOUR MONEY than what goes to actual people on welfare.

It doesnt matter if other schizophrenics are on drugs. They need the help.

Tell me, do you go out to the bar or the pub for a drink with your own money? What makes you so special or more priveleged than the schizo that goes there using his money he got from SSI? It doesnt matter if its used for drugs or booze. Thats the fault of the welfare recipient. They arent supposed to use it for that. 600 dollars is the highest amount you can get on SSI, but schizophrenics and mentally ill people have problems with everything, including money management, alcohol, drugs, homelessness, sanity levels, ect...

I am one of the very, very few schizos that quit drugs entirely, quit smoking cigarettes, and quit drinking alcohol. Almost every one of us does those.

So when you talk about people toking on a bong, that person could very well be schizophrenic. And if you have no sympathy for schizos then ur either ignorant or you shouldnt have an opinion.

Welfare shouldnt be "trimmed" by asshats, it should be INCREASED a shitload. Go fucking trim some billions in military spending. Trim those various useless government programs that wont affect people badly if you remove them. But of course, this nation is far more interested in tax money used to further greed, war, and tits -- than in helping people that need it the most.

bleh, im done. If you dont care about welfare then the whole morality points that religions teach fall on deaf ears. Wasnt it Jesus supposedly said to take care of the poor and needy? that it was the highest form of morality?

JemyM

March 24th, 2008, 17:37

Wasnt it Jesus supposedly said to take care of the poor and needy? that it was the highest form of morality?

No, he said the poorest on earth would be the richest in heaven. At one point he honor a woman who pay her last money to the temple because she gave more than others. He say that a rich wont get to heaven unless he gave away everything he owned. At one point he say that helping the poor is not important when he is around and pleasing him is more important since the poor would be there when he's not. Not once he mentions a welfare system. The only one who suggests a welfare system was Paul at one point in the Acts. After they agree to donate everything to church though, a couple decide to keep some for their own and they get killed for doing so. Islam on the other hand have a welfare system (Zakat) as one of their five pillars (commandments).

The argument against a welfare system is usually supported by the idea that an individual creates his environment. The argument for a welfare system is that an individual is created by his environment. There's a classic scene in "The Night of the Iguana" with the following dialog:

(a woman) - "Yes, we are poor."
(someone) - "Well, you say that like you are proud over it."
(the woman replies) - "We are neither proud nor ashamed. Poor is not what we are, it's what happened to us."

That poverty "happens" to someone is almost unthinkable to people who have not seen it happen, but one must have a heart of stone to look at the homeless today and tell himself that there's no reason to help them since they made a choice to be there. You can say that there are jobs for them, but without a good social status and the ability to read, many are still doomed to a life in cardboard boxes.

In the United Kingdom the idea of positive rights came as a response to the terrible conditions during the 1800 in which children ran around like animals and people starved to death in the streets. Both liberals and conservatives forced the state to take action. Still today you do not get much money if you are without a job, but you do get enough to have a chance to get back on your feet.

magerette

March 24th, 2008, 18:29

I read this last night in a popular novel from 1938:

"Make the inheritance tax 100% and we will see who's poor because they're lazy."

People who have been 'comfortably off' all their lives have very little idea what it's like to have no resources beyond that minimum wage job, which is all you can get because no one sent you to college. (Not everyone can get into college on a scholarship, believe me, no matter how hard you work at it--I was turned down even though my grades put me in the top quarter of my HS class. My SAT's were very high in English and History but low to average in Math.)

During HS, I worked in a dime store for $0.75 an hour from the time I was fifteen and baby-sat at night and still couldn't afford the books for college, let alone the tuition. My single mother worked in a hospital cafeteria trying to support me and my sisters and there was no way she could pay for anything beyond our most basic needs. It was only later in life that I was able to make it to college under my own steam, and even then the financial pressures of raising a family made it very difficult to get even an associate degree. Without that, I would have been a manual laborer all my life.

So IMO, most of the people who sit back and say that being poor is a consequence of choice have never actually had to make that 'choice.' Obviously, no one wants to pay for some slacker to sit at home taking up space and contributing nothing, or worse, dragging society as a whole down through crime and addiction, but viewing everyone who needs help as this stereotype comes from the deep paranoia that sits at the heart of the right wing.

dteowner

March 24th, 2008, 19:15

but viewing everyone who needs help as this stereotype comes from the deep paranoia that sits at the heart of the right wing.I was with you until this point. If you read our posts, both blantantninja and I (whom I believe represent the "heart of the right wing" around here) have said that a welfare system is both necessary and proper. We have a real problem with the abuses of the system. That's probably (pulling a number out of my keister) 10% of the people. The other 90% are good people in bad situations who need and deserve some help. Broadening the 10% to say that we want to do away with welfare entirely comes from the deep paranoia that sits at the heart of the left wing. ;)

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 19:37

"trim welfare" is a solution for what? So you get off on trimming social nets that ACTUALLY HELP people that cant help themselves? people that got dealt bad cards in life, LIKE SCHIZOPHRENICS and other people that got ****ED. how about trim nuclear missiles instead? How about ****ing trim 3 trillion wasted dollars debt from a stupid war? huh? A war that we will lose, anyway.

I have no problem providing services to mentally ill or those that truly can't take care of themselves. I also have no problem with helping people get back on their feet via short-term benefits like unemployment compensation. But that's it.

As for nukes, we haven't built new nukes in years and have decommissioned more than half our arsenal. There will always be a need a strategic ICBM defense to insure our security against other countries as well. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Humanity simply isn't at a point where that's an option.

As for the war, while I may not agree with it completely, when you provide a solution to our oil addiction, we can start talking about not being involved in the Middle East.

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 19:39

I am willing to bet that a LOT more of your personal division of the tax money is dedicated to a war in Iraq, military equipment and training, research grants, into corporate pockets, into structural management, and lost in quagmires of corruption -- all of that is a LOT MORE PART OF YOUR MONEY than what goes to actual people on welfare.

That doesn't mean there isn't waste in the social services of our country. I'm all for trimming the fat across the board.

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 19:47

I read this last night in a popular novel from 1938:

"Make the inheritance tax 100% and we will see who's poor because they're lazy."

People who have been 'comfortably off' all their lives have very little idea what it's like to have no resources beyond that minimum wage job, which is all you can get because no one sent you to college. (Not everyone can get into college on a scholarship, believe me, no matter how hard you work at it--I was turned down even though my grades put me in the top quarter of my HS class. My SAT's were very high in English and History but low to average in Math.)

My parents made too much for me for me to get need based scholarships for school, but my father lost his job and I had to put myself through school for the final three years. (and the first year, I paid half anyway as my parents felt you should earn your own way).

I did it by working and taking student loans. Anyone that can get into a college can find a way to pay for it. Hell, you can join the army (now might not be the best time!) and get enough to pay 4 years of tuition at most medium level state schools.

Now I'll be the first to say that we need to revamp our pre-college education system in many parts of the country, and in many cultures of the country, the concept of going to college to make a better life for yourself needs to be stressed more. However, there are VERY few in this country that can't find a way to pay for college if they can get accepted. It may not be easy, and you may be saddled with debt when you get out, but you'll still be better off than just working for minimum wage or some unskilled labor position.

Sure some people simply aren't smart enough to go, but that's why we have other training venues like trade schools (which I wish this did a better job of promoting in high schools to kids that obviously aren't going to college).

JemyM

March 24th, 2008, 19:49

I recently made a test where I was on the political compass. I ended up as 48% right and 52% left. I think the last 2% was a coincidence. I think the point with aligning politics to the "right" and "left" is to boil down the complexity of society into simplicity since few voters have the time to really read politic philosophy. The result is a form of tribalism, red vs blue. Everything you are I am against even if what you say makes sense.

magerette

March 24th, 2008, 20:43

I was with you until this point. If you read our posts, both blantantninja and I (whom I believe represent the "heart of the right wing" around here) have said that a welfare system is both necessary and proper. We have a real problem with the abuses of the system. That's probably (pulling a number out of my keister) 10% of the people. The other 90% are good people in bad situations who need and deserve some help. Broadening the 10% to say that we want to do away with welfare entirely comes from the deep paranoia that sits at the heart of the left wing. ;)

I don't see you guys at the heart of the right wing, dte. You are sensible people with reasonable expectations of government AFA I can tell. I certainly wasn't trying to indulge in name calling. And I can hardly say I'm at the heart of the left wing, seeing as how I've probably voted for the same presidential candidates as you in the last four or five elections.

The paranoia I'm referring to is evinced by people--mostly talking heads I hope--that exploit the fears of those who have clawed their way up through the American system and want to hang on to what they have, who are threatened by those whose values differ from them--something I would never say about you, dte--aggravated, yes--threatened, no. ;)

Anyway, I agree also with much of what blatantninja has to say, particularly about emphasizing trade school alternatives for those who don't have the desire or ability to benefit from an academic education. I certainly hope times have changed since I had my non-college experience in 1967. :) (I know I couldn't get any loans as an eighteen year old girl whose mom had declared bankruptcy due to legal battles for child support she could never get.)

Btw, the 100% inheritance tax comment was just an allegory--there were a lot of Marxists around in 1938. I believe people have a right to accumulate wealth through reasonably honest means, and that a middle class and even an affluent class benefit society as a whole.

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 20:57

(I know I couldn't get any loans as an eighteen year old girl whose mom had declared bankruptcy due to legal battles for child support she could never get.)

It's always good to know what time frame people are talking about! I graduated in '97, so I guess I generally just assume when discussing with people on the net that they graduated somewhere near there! You know what they say about what happens when you assume!

So to clarify! In this day and age, jut about anyone can find cash to pay for mid level schools!

Prime Junta

March 24th, 2008, 21:23

Except that student loans have gotten a lot harder to get right now, due to the credit crunch. This is an exceptional situation, of course, and I'm sure it'll get better once the economy picks up again in a few years.

However, there is a case to be made for making things like this publicly rather than privately funded: precisely that private credit dries up during downturns, which exacerbates it, whereas publicly funded credit like student loans or unemployment benefits kick in during downturns, which provide an automatic fiscal stimulus -- much more finely tuned than any package passed by Congress too.

I agree with NN and DTE about doing everything possible to weed out cheaters, of course. That said, and moral issues aside, a 10% cheating rate doesn't sound too onerous a burden on the system -- if only it doesn't get much bigger than that.

By the way, I always find it curious that rightists tend to treat market waste and government waste in completely different ways. For example, during the dotcom boom the market built an insane amount of fiber-optic cable, most of which is *still* dark, and during the housing boom it built, what, a million houses nobody wants. This is insanely wasteful -- yet I don't hear many rightists railing against this inefficiency. If the market does it, it's above criticism -- but if the government proposed to do the same, you'd (rightly) want their heads on a plate.

Also that many of them exempt the biggest government waste of all, military spending, from criticism altogether. (A 10% waste rate on military spending would be a magnificent improvement in efficiency.)

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 21:41

Except that student loans have gotten a lot harder to get right now, due to the credit crunch. This is an exceptional situation, of course, and I'm sure it'll get better once the economy picks up again in a few years.

Stafford loans are still almost completely funded (IIRC) which basically takes care of tuition and fees at medium level schools. Private funds have definitely dried up, but since those are more for paying for private schools or living expenses.

By the way, I always find it curious that rightists tend to treat market waste and government waste in completely different ways. For example, during the dotcom boom the market built an insane amount of fiber-optic cable, most of which is *still* dark, and during the housing boom it built, what, a million houses nobody wants. This is insanely wasteful -- yet I don't hear many rightists railing against this inefficiency. If the market does it, it's above criticism -- but if the government proposed to do the same, you'd (rightly) want their heads on a plate.

It's because we are capitalists. If a company wants to raise money to do a project (no matter how fool hardy it may be) and people want to invest their capital in it, that's their prerogative. If I don't want to be part of that waste, I don't invest. I don't get the same option with government spending (believe me, if I could opt out of SS I sure as hell would!)

Essentially, this redistributes capital from the foolish to the prudent.

Also that many of them exempt the biggest government waste of all, military spending, from criticism altogether. (A 10% waste rate on military spending would be a magnificent improvement in efficiency.)

There certainly needs to be better accountability into where military funds go, but I see no problem, in general, with having the world's largest military expenditures. Having a military that is trained better than anyone else, technologically more advanced than anyone else, and better equipped than anyone else is essential to our status in the world order.

Like I said, there needs to be a good audit of military spending, but as we saw from Clinton's cuts, just making broad cuts isn't a great idea.

Prime Junta

March 24th, 2008, 22:11

There certainly needs to be better accountability into where military funds go, but I see no problem, in general, with having the world's largest military expenditures. Having a military that is trained better than anyone else, technologically more advanced than anyone else, and better equipped than anyone else is essential to our status in the world order.

Well, you're not getting anywhere near your money's worth. You're spending more than the rest of the world put together, but two bush wars (pun entirely intentional) in two miserable little countries have your military screaming "overstretch."

Prime Junta

March 24th, 2008, 22:18

Essentially, this redistributes capital from the foolish to the prudent.

If that was all it did, there would not be a problem. But it's also wasteful. Efficient use of economic resources translates into growth -- a bigger pie to be sliced up as you want. Inefficient use translates to a smaller pie. The current economic crisis will certainly hit some of the "foolish" who precipitated it, but also a great many innocent bystanders.

And I really don't see that the fact that market forces did it makes it any better.

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 22:32

Well, you're not getting anywhere near your money's worth. You're spending more than the rest of the world put together, but two bush wars (pun entirely intentional) in two miserable little countries have your military screaming "overstretch."

One of the main reasons we are stretched (and that we couldn't get the job done quicker, or at all) are our obligations in the rest of the world. Despite the size of our Army, we were two divisions short of what the generals said we needed to pacify post-invasion Iraq. Part of that is of course due to the Clinton cuts, but the bigger drag our the standing forces we keep throughout the rest of the world.

March 24th, 2008, 22:32

Its also not redistribution, if you make a foolish investment the capital is sunk not given to someone else wise or foolish.

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 22:38

If that was all it did, there would not be a problem. But it's also wasteful. Efficient use of economic resources translates into growth -- a bigger pie to be sliced up as you want. Inefficient use translates to a smaller pie. The current economic crisis will certainly hit some of the "foolish" who precipitated it, but also a great many innocent bystanders.

And I really don't see that the fact that market forces did it makes it any better.

I completely disagree. Why? Because for one thing, the waste you see is only temporary (sure it will end up replaced by other waste, but it will be different waste affecting, directly, different people). The most efficient use of economic resources is simply the source that will pay the most for it.

Those million houses you mention aren't going to sit there are rot for the most part, they will eventually be sold to someone at a much lower cost than what the original builder or buyer expected, or even potentially paid for. As such, it serves as a redistribution of wealth. A family buys a house next year for $200k that would have cost $300k last year. If the house cost (either the builder or the person selling it) $250k, you have redistributed $50k of wealth.

The same is true with the dot.coms. Wealthy investors poured money into dot.coms that in turn purchased raw material or supplies and hired people that they paid inflated salaries to. So long as those employees, or the supplies of their material and supplies, weren't dumb enough to pour all their money into tech or dot.com stocks, they benefited.

Is it perfect? No, but I trust that model a hell of a lot better than the government's ability to evaluate and approve business ventures.

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 22:39

Its also not redistribution, if you make a foolish investment the capital is sunk not given to someone else wise or foolish.

It's redistribution, just not in the traditional sense that we are accustomed to thinking. Wealth of one person has decreased while the relative purchasing power of another has increased.

blatantninja

March 24th, 2008, 22:41

Speaking of waste and not getting our money's worth, I found this link mind boggling

US has the second highest corporate taxation rates (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/us-states-lead.html)

You combine that with the income tax rates on our personal income and we REALLY are not getting our money's worth.

dteowner

March 24th, 2008, 23:13

Prime Junta

March 25th, 2008, 00:53

I completely disagree. Why? Because for one thing, the waste you see is only temporary (sure it will end up replaced by other waste, but it will be different waste affecting, directly, different people).

The same argument applies to government waste.

The most efficient use of economic resources is simply the source that will pay the most for it.

That's not true at all, actually. It is true in the classical economic model, which doesn't take into account information asymmetries, incomplete markets, or general irrational behavior.

Those million houses you mention aren't going to sit there are rot for the most part, they will eventually be sold to someone at a much lower cost than what the original builder or buyer expected, or even potentially paid for.

Actually, lots of them *are* going to sit there and rot, and degrade their neighborhoods while they're at it.

And, again, the same argument could be applied to governmental inefficiency.

Is it perfect? No, but I trust that model a hell of a lot better than the government's ability to evaluate and approve business ventures.

Me too... *generally speaking.* My intention wasn't to argue that it would be better if the government spent the money -- it was to point out that there are times when the market does completely idiotic things on a really grand scale... and, perhaps, to suggest that we might try to think of ways to mitigate this.

Prime Junta

March 25th, 2008, 00:55

Quick chime-in...BN hit on the key thing, PJ. The wasted fiber optics and houses did not cost me a dime and I had the option via investment to support or not support that spending. With government spending, I am required to pay but have no input to the output (and please don't try to say that my voting pattern is my input since we know that's insufficient control as well as generally time-lagged by 4 years).

You use the Internet, right? In that case, you are paying for that dark cable -- your payments to your ISP go, in part and eventually, towards interest payments on the loans the ISP of your ISP's ISP (or however far down the chain it goes) had to take out to lay down all that cable.

And if you have an adjustable-rate mortgage, or home equity that you intend to realize somewhere along the line, you're paying for those extra homes too -- they're driving the credit crunch, leading to higher interest rates, and driving down the house prices.

March 25th, 2008, 01:08

It's redistribution, just not in the traditional sense that we are accustomed to thinking. Wealth of one person has decreased while the relative purchasing power of another has increased.

Except relative purchasing power really isn't a good measure - if we both have the captial to build a house and I foolishly build mine where it will only sell for half the capital invested you arn't any richer even if you've now got relativly more purchasing power.

dteowner

March 25th, 2008, 01:34

You use the Internet, right? In that case, you are paying for that dark cable -- your payments to your ISP go, in part and eventually, towards interest payments on the loans the ISP of your ISP's ISP (or however far down the chain it goes) had to take out to lay down all that cable.

And if you have an adjustable-rate mortgage, or home equity that you intend to realize somewhere along the line, you're paying for those extra homes too -- they're driving the credit crunch, leading to higher interest rates, and driving down the house prices.Even if I agree to the points, it's still a case of choice. I am not forced to use the internet (although I do), nor am I forced to take an ARM (although I've unfortunately got one--ick). I am forced to pay taxes that get handed to Mr. Maplethorpe or to our hypothetical welfare bong-toker without my consent nor for my benefit, potentially by a senator/representative I did not elect.

magerette

March 25th, 2008, 01:47

To jump away from economics, just wanted to let you know I liked your Washington Post article, dte--I hate to hear the media saying Hillary's down for the count--it's a personal challenge to her necromantic need to rise once again from her political grave with the help of the nearest human sacrifice...if you really want to be scared, read that whole piece he quotes by Cenk Uygur at the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/is-hillary-positioning-fo_b_92904.html)--the title alone ought to make your blood run cold. ;)

dteowner

March 25th, 2008, 02:00

The thing I liked about that article is that someone "in the industry" is claiming the same media games/conspiracy that I was, which made me feel a little better about my tinfoil hat moment. Kinda like Ammon's sig--I'm not as retarded as previously assumed. ;)

txa1265

March 25th, 2008, 04:13

By the way, I always find it curious that rightists tend to treat market waste and government waste in completely different ways. For example, during the dotcom boom the market built an insane amount of fiber-optic cable, most of which is *still* dark, and during the housing boom it built, what, a million houses nobody wants. This is insanely wasteful -- yet I don't hear many rightists railing against this inefficiency. If the market does it, it's above criticism -- but if the government proposed to do the same, you'd (rightly) want their heads on a plate.

Actually, the wasteful *production* I have less of an issue with, as it tends to absorb back in over time. The things we have seen through these boom times is the obscene accumulation of individual wealth at the expense of corporate responsibility, and sometimes at the expense of the corporate health and welfare.

Also that many of them exempt the biggest government waste of all, military spending, from criticism altogether. (A 10% waste rate on military spending would be a magnificent improvement in efficiency.)

Whatever happened to the good ol' days when we could have a good chuckle knowing the the military was at once the most wasteful entity on the planet yet also treasure their budget as producing the fundamental research that has given us almost every technological advance of the last century ... ? Now they are just wasteful.

Prime Junta

March 25th, 2008, 10:10

Even if I agree to the points, it's still a case of choice. I am not forced to use the internet (although I do), nor am I forced to take an ARM (although I've unfortunately got one--ick). I am forced to pay taxes that get handed to Mr. Maplethorpe or to our hypothetical welfare bong-toker without my consent nor for my benefit, potentially by a senator/representative I did not elect.

Even if you don't use the Internet yourself, you are dependent on services that do: your bank, your employer, and so on. Giving up the Internet just puts you one link further away from the ur-ISP that laid that cable. Short of becoming a subsistence farmer in Montana (in which case you wouldn't be paying any taxes, either), you *are* paying for those mistakes.

Once more: market failures and government failures impact people much the same way. Everyone's feeling the impact, direct or indirect, of the crisis in the financial system -- or paying for all that dark cable. No more choice about it than that NEA grant to Mapplethorpe.

(By the way, your part of the entire budget of the NEA amounts to about 50 cents a year. A typical NEA grant is about $20,000, so we can pretty safely assume that your sponsorship of Mapplethorpe amounts to less than one one-hundredth of one cent. IMO bellyaching about that kind of money is kinda silly, when you're paying a thousand bucks a year or so for the war in Iraq.)

txa1265

March 25th, 2008, 12:25

Once more: market failures and government failures impact people much the same way. Everyone's feeling the impact, direct or indirect, of the crisis in the financial system -- or paying for all that dark cable. No more choice about it than that NEA grant to Mapplethorpe.

It is very true - I work for Corning Inc. now (note the new location ;) ), and they saw tremendous growth selling glass fiber in those years ... and the bust nearly cost them the business! Thing is, when a 25-person VC-based startup fails nobody really gets all that hurt, but when a 25,000 person company that is the major driver of a regional economy gets badly hurt ... the impact is still felt inside and outside of the company today.

Also, I am of the opinion that the mindset that has us 'not paying far Maplethorpe' or whatever other 'objectionable' stuff you want to ban (I am actually a big fan of abstract art, go figure) is also the mindset that has landed us in a place where we just 'teach for standardized tests' for kids - no art, no music, no team sports ... and the money we save is a piddling figure compared to the waste elsewhere in the system.

But it is like everything else - people in general will focus on what riles them up, regardless of actual magnitude.

dteowner

March 25th, 2008, 14:27

Goodgawd, you guys have real problems with representative examples. I don't want to ban Maplethorpe. I just don't want any of my money going to him. How hard is that to understand? He's got a right to make crappy art. If you, as a consumer, want to support his crappy art, buy a picture. How is that any different from our frequent campaigns around here to support the indie game developer (Eschalon, Dwarf Fortress) by coughing up the money? I expect there's people out there that think Eschalon is leading children to the express elevator to hell and they have zero interest in giving Basilisk a dime. Good for them. Since I've already taken said elevator and am digging a deeper shaft, I bought a copy in hopes of seeing Eschalon 2. The key, once again, is choice.

We have a representative government. That means we pick someone to represent our interests. My contention all along is that the government does not represent me very well, whereas the corporate sector does because we've cut out the (hugely inefficient) middle man in Washington on put the decision making back in my hands. Do I have full control of the corporate sector? Of course not. I've got money to spend for my benefit and they supply products that benefit me, so our purposes align. That's not the case once the government gets involved.

That's where your whole dark cable argument falls apart. The corporate waste balances out over time because wasteful companies don't survive. A wasteful government goes deeper in debt and marches on. Had the government been ordering cable, the stockpile probably would have been twice as large, particularly if the manufacturing plant happened to be in Senator Byrd's district.

blatantninja

March 25th, 2008, 16:41

The same argument applies to government waste.

Not at all. The hardest thing to do is to kill a government program. They last decades beyond their use.

That's not true at all, actually. It is true in the classical economic model, which doesn't take into account information asymmetries, incomplete markets, or general irrational behavior.

True, but there still isn't a better model that exists.

Actually, lots of them *are* going to sit there and rot, and degrade their neighborhoods while they're at it.

They may sit for a few months, maybe a year, but that's it. New construction isn't going to degrade neighborhoods.

And, again, the same argument could be applied to governmental inefficiency.

I don't see what you are saying here.

[quoteMe too... *generally speaking.* My intention wasn't to argue that it would be better if the government spent the money -- it was to point out that there are times when the market does completely idiotic things on a really grand scale... and, perhaps, to suggest that we might try to think of ways to mitigate this.[/QUOTE]

I'm all for thinking of that, but like I said, I've yet to see a better system.