patrick.net

all things the same, tax and spend is better than borrow and spend.

taxes used to transfer wealth to unproductive/lazy/unlucky people, is bad

taxes used to buy big guns and bullets to protect all Americans, is good

Kevin says

You know who else planted potatoes?

I did not know that. I thought a key element of Stalinist purges was starvation.
But these people apparently liked potatoes too:

Well, it's clear the lower income, under-educated, indentured voters tend to believe the mainstream media and liberal bias. The dependent class, do-gooders, liberals and the like haven't learned to read between the lies, nor do they want to. It might stop their socialistic, dependent, government "do it for me - because I can't do it for myself" agenda.

I used to be a dues paying, unionized, lazy, democratic government worker...for nearly 10 years...until I wised up. I invested a lot of time reading, talking, listening, comparing, analyzing. The lessons in "The Millionaire Next Door", "Think and Grow Rich", "The Secret" "The Richest Man in Babylon" all support opportunity, self-reliance, personal responsibility, living within one's means, having a positive attitude of gratitude, and the like.

It became pretty clear, pretty quick that the positive things I learned were the exact opposite of what government teaches...which is dependency, loss of freedom, privatizing profits but socializing losses, reckless fiscal policy, class warfare, thought crimes, theft by inflation, larger government, new taxes, more union support, more affirmative action, more abortion, less oil, less free enterprise, more predatory lawyers, producers get penalized, new government bureaucracies with new government Czars, more liberal judges, loss of individual rights, more welfare, more job-killing business regulation, decreased productivity, more bad changes.

In other words: Have less - pay more. All for the common good, of course. No one with even half a brain would support that kind of vision for America - unless you're either a socialist - or brain damaged. And there you have it.

Honest Abe says

Well, it’s clear the lower income, under-educated, indentured voters tend to believe the mainstream media and liberal bias. The dependent class, do-gooders, liberals and the like haven’t learned to read between the lies, nor do they want to. It might stop their socialistic, dependent, government “do it for me - because I can’t do it for myself” agenda.

Let's leave my family out of this, young man!

Honest Abe says

Well, it’s clear the lower income, under-educated, indentured voters tend to believe the mainstream media and liberal bias. The dependent class, do-gooders, liberals and the like haven’t learned to read between the lies, nor do they want to. It might stop their socialistic, dependent, government “do it for me - because I can’t do it for myself” agenda.
I used to be a dues paying, unionized, lazy, democratic government worker…for nearly 10 years…until I wised up. I invested a lot of time reading, talking, listening, comparing, analyzing. The lessons in “The Millionaire Next Door”, “Think and Grow Rich”, “The Secret” “The Richest Man in Babylon” all support opportunity, self-reliance, personal responsibility, living within one’s means, having a positive attitude of gratitude, and the like.
It became pretty clear, pretty quick that the positive things I learned were the exact opposite of what government teaches…which is dependency, loss of freedom, privatizing profits but socializing losses, reckless fiscal policy, class warfare, thought crimes, theft by inflation, larger government, new taxes, more union support, more affirmative action, more abortion, less oil, less free enterprise, more predatory lawyers, producers get penalized, new government bureaucracies with new government Czars, more liberal judges, loss of individual rights, more welfare, more job-killing business regulation, decreased productivity, more bad changes.
In other words: Have less - pay more. All for the common good, of course. No one with even half a brain would support that kind of vision for America - unless you’re either a socialist - or brain damaged. And there you have it.

Anyone who takes advice from the secret is beyond hope.

Abe. You and the Tea party were a match made in heaven.

Elliemae, hahaha - thats a good one. Actually I was thinking about one of my relatives. BTW, you're not related to Fanniemae, are you?

Marcus - you said "anyone who takes advice from the secret is beyond hope". Really? Some of the concepts in The Secret are very similar to those of "The Power of Positive Thinking", "Think and Grow Rich", "The Magic of Thinking Big", "Tough Times Never Last but Tough People Do", and many others. But being the liberal that you are you wouldn't know anything about those things. No problem, I understand, it simply defines who you are. Yuck.

Honest Abe says

But being the liberal that you are you wouldn’t know anything about those things. No problem, I understand, it simply defines who you are. Yuck.

At least I'm aware of who I'm talking to (sort of). Maybe you've been practicing "think and become drunk ?" You are one serious piece of work, Abe or whoever you are.

Honest Abe says

Elliemae, hahaha - thats a good one. Actually I was thinking about one of my relatives. BTW, you’re not related to Fanniemae, are you?
Marcus - you said “anyone who takes advice from the secret is beyond hope”. Really? Some of the concepts in The Secret are very similar to those of “The Power of Positive Thinking”, “Think and Grow Rich”, “The Magic of Thinking Big”, “Tough Times Never Last but Tough People Do”, and many others. But being the liberal that you are you wouldn’t know anything about those things. No problem, I understand, it simply defines who you are. Yuck.

I'm not Marcus so I don't know what he thinks.

I do know that I'm a successful person, and I didn't need any motivational woo-woo to become that way, and I think it's kind of pathetic that anyone would listen to that kind of pseudo scientific bullshit.

Honest Abe says

it simply defines who you are. Yuck

Abe. Any inferences you make about my work ethic, my values and such should be based on what I say in this forum. That's all you can know about me.

Everyone knows about the strange one dimensional boob that you portray yourself to be. I don't even think that it's possible that you are the way you portray yourself to be.

About those "create your reality" books. I don't care to read them, but I think there is something to it. People have talked about the importance of beliefs and attitude for eons in one way or another. Neuroscience is a hot topic now, with some new twists on the same ideas.

I'm reminded of how mothers used to say, don't hold your eyes that way (cross eyed) they might stay that way. Certain brain patterns that arise in alcoholism and addiction probably do cause changes in hard wiring. Same for the victim personality. Sure there's something to that. So ?

But Abe. Lecture yourself, not us. And try to change your habitual rewiring of your own brain with the obsessive generalizations about liberals. Maybe consider talking to a professional.

I should talk to a professional? You're the one with psychopathological brain damage. And you're in denial on top of it. Furthermore, you're a liberal democrat - the party of food stamps and dependency. Its completly obvious you don't need no stupid self-help, "create your reality" books. Help us out here, what books do you read? Or is the answer "NONE".

In reality, you are everything you accuse me of being.

Honest Abe says

Elliemae, hahaha - thats a good one. Actually I was thinking about one of my relatives. BTW, you’re not related to Fanniemae, are you?

No, my relatives were real people and not a government created entity. :)

Honest Abe says

In reality, you are everything you accuse me of being

If that were true I would write a long laundry list of everything I think is wrong in our country and say it was all the fault of people like you.

It's true that there is something about your posts Abe that pushes my buttons. I think the very style and underlying theme are passive aggressive, or maybe it's just aggressive, but then that's the intent. Where as most people on here are talking about something specific, and often sharing interesting insights, even if they are politically far from where I'm at.

Anyway, I feel bad about getting kind of mean with you on more than one occasion, so in the interest of not doing that anymore, I am going to try out one of Patrick's new features.

The problem with socialism is that it’s mostly socialism for the very rich.

RayAmerica says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/food-stamp-recipients-at-record-41-8-million-americans-in-july-u-s-says.html

And all those food stamps _together_ cost about $56 billion per year, which is nothing compared to the first $700 billion bailout for bankers, or the next bailout, or the next one.

Not to mention the effect of taxing billionaires at 15% (because almost all their income is dividends and capital gains) while working people pay 28% on actual work. Why don't they pay 28% while workers pay 15%?

And all those food stamps _together_ cost about $56 billion per year

Unfortunately our obligations don't end with "food stamps." For a more detailed account of our entitlement obligations, check this out:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Factsheets/Heading-for-a-10000-Foot-Cliff-Why-Budget-Process-Reform-is-Needed-Now

I haven't been reading this since Friday... seems like I've missed a bit.

Noticed this item in the news yesterday and it seemed apropos for this thread: "Firefighters Watch As Home Burns: Gene Cranick's House Destroyed In Tennessee Over $75 Fee"
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

Just a tragedy of heartbreaking proportions and mind boggling stupidity and callousness, and it strikes me that this is the kind of world Abe and Giggles would take us to.

Honest Abe says

a liberal democrat - the party of food stamps and dependency.

Actually... the economy almost always does better under democratic rule. Its sad but its a fact. This notion that Republicans are the better money managers policy-wise is a myth, here's one set of charts, the only link I can be bothered to dig up at the moment: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts .

But of course we could demonstrate this till the cows come and it wouldn't have any bearing on your discussion, and anyway I think we're talking at odds aren't we? You're not talking about making the economy work better for all, creating stable systems, reducing crime, bettering education etc, you're talking about being able to hoard up in your little hole and keep all of what you think is purely yours.

EDIT

The problem with socialism is that it’s mostly socialism for the very rich. Why do we keep taxing the common people to bail out failed bankers?

Thats not socialism. In fact its exactly the opposite.

shrekgrinch says

The military is 20% of the total budget. Of course, it would figure you would use the ‘ginned up’ budget the omits entitlement spending.

Come on. You are not that naive, are you? The military is almost certainly 50%+.

Thats basically the latest budget concept from the Republicans.

shrek .... are you sure you're from CA? I wasn't aware there were any sane people left in CA.

RayAmerica says

The problem with socialism is that it’s mostly socialism for the very rich.

RayAmerica says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/food-stamp-recipients-at-record-41-8-million-americans-in-july-u-s-says.html

Food stamps and entitlement programs aren't socialism.

Please, look up what socialism actually is.

Here, you can start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Some examples of things that can be classified as socialism:

- Norway's state ownership of the oil industry
- China's state ownership of telecom, energy, and banking system
- The US postal service (is this one OK since it's in the constitution?)
- The British healthcare system
- Medicare
- The french, canadian, and Japanese health insurance systems

Some examples of things that can not be classified as socialism:
- The canadian health care system
- The swiss health care system
- The french health care system
- The japanese health care system
- The american health care system
- Welfare
- Food stamps
- Disability payments
- Unemployment compensation

There are plenty of arguments to be made against entitlement programs, but "it's socialism!!!!1" isn't one of them.

If you're going to argue for or against something, please use logical arguments. Saying that something is socialism, and is thus automatically "bad" is a shitty way to argue. There are plenty of examples of successful socialism in the world, and plenty of examples of failed socialism. There are plenty of examples of failed market systems, and plenty of examples of successful market systems.

What you're doing here is treating economic theory like religion, not arguing rationally. This makes no sense.

Kevin says

please use logical arguments. Saying that something is socialism, and is thus automatically “bad” is a shitty way to argue

You can't teach an old dog new tricks. And by the way, it's sacrilege in some circles to suggest that socialism can ever work.

Kevin .... thanks for posting such a volume of liberal dribble. What you fail to realize is that basically all of these programs lead to the ultimate liberal state; pure socialism. Ever wonder why liberals constantly carp about the evils of corporations? Why do you think that is? They want to regulate them out of business to the point that government will have to step in and take the entire industry over .... all to the "benefit" of the working class blah blah blah.

Someone really famous once said that something was best expressed to "the people" by the barrel of a gun? Was it capitalism or socialism? Was it conservative(as viewed today) in nature, or liberal(as viewed today) in nature? Was it spiritual or anti-spiritual? Anyone?

Forced wealth transfer between citizens is either socialism or theft. Socialism is the unaffected elite taking from those below themselves, and then handing that wealth they take to those they deem worthy based on many things ... such as race, creed, color, looks, sexual preference, intelect, family history, ect. Theft is much better than socialism because it is not based on race, sex, age, or anything else. So, for me, I'll choose to deal with theft between citizens rather than theft from those insulated from that which they create.

Bap33 says

Forced wealth transfer between citizens is either socialism or theft.

Thus King George was a socialist? And the first time the chief distributed the kill of one hunter to the tribe?

You guys have a very expansive view of socialism as anything that's not utter Darwinism. Which is funny to me, because so many of the "survival of the fittest" types I encounter don't believe in evolution.

Bap33 says

Socialism is the unaffected elite taking from those below themselves, and then handing that wealth they take to those they deem worthy based on many things

Actually, thats a better definition of capitalism & 'trickle down' economics.

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."

"In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximise use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximising exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind; at least for the factors of production.

"Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society.

"They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation."

Ho hum, facts again. Move along, nothing to see here... much easier to simply drop some cute aphorism that says what you happen to want it be...

International corporations like WalMart leave countless smaller corporations as bloody corpses in its wake.
I'd have a hard time arguing that the carnage is worth it, but there most definitely is a flip side. The striking auto parts workers in China owe a debt to the employment provided by Walmart's suppliers. Is it all worth it (the human and ecological toll)? I'll get back to after I take a call on my iPhone (I joke, I don't own an iPhone...)

EBGuy says

Is it all worth it

Not if the savings we get from Walmart's lower prices just ends up in higher rents and land values here, no.

Modern economics erased the difference between land and capital in the 1910-1930 period. We've been flying blind ever since.

shrekgrinch says

No we don’t. We have the literal view. Theft = theft no matter how you justify the thief’s motives and slavery = is slavery no matter that the ‘good’ that comes of it. Period.

Are you saying that all taxation is theft and should be abolished?

no country on earth is pure capitalist, none pure socialist. every country taxes and most have various types of state funded services, "safety nets", public education, covered health care, pensions, layoff insurance, as well as those things that are better not left up to user pay but are good for the nation to have like roads, an army, municipal buildings and amenities etc so the point is lets all get real, Canada is much like the US is much like Europe is much like Japan, and many others just want to be us, and our differences are more in the mind than anything. The thing that is different is the spin, and the rhetoric, and the philosophy, but when the rubber hits the road the labels break down. Industrialized nations use the market as the main engine, and syphon off some excess juice to accopmlish alot of great things that the market dosent do so well on its own. profit motive is very important, for people to want to invest in themselves, their education, to make a return. All well and good, but the US just puts too much emphasis on the profit motive, and the right to accumulate wealth. In reality, when society helps those born poor succeed a more true meritocracy happens, instead of dominant families and last names.

shrekgrinch says

Theft = theft no matter how you justify the thief’s motives and slavery = is slavery no matter that the ‘good’ that comes of it. Period.

"Socialism" = theft, bah, pure BS, even if you knew what socialism is or what "it" currently does for you. Actually, I don't even know what you're talking about when you say things like that in this context.

How about this as a starter for me then: If it was possible to and if all were willing to kindly let you off the hook for all the advantages you've been provided with up to this point by our culture & society, the safety, the security, the education, etc would you if you could, opt out of paying taxes if it meant that you no longer were eligible to reap any of the benefits?

I suppose it would mean compulsory military service for your entire family for a few years, and it would mean that you'd pay FULL price for whatever education your kids would need from grade school through university, it would mean if you required fire dept service you'd pay the full costs of the call, it would mean that some form of $ assessment would have to be levied for the use of the roads you use in the city, and I guess someone would have to figure out how you'd pay for the sewer lines and electricity poles/cables/etc that have been run to whatever house you live in... I guess you'd have to wear some form of signage to indicate to the local police that you weren't to be assisted in case of emergency unless you first signed a waiver for all costs etc, or perhaps a better way to do it would be to divide the operating costs for the local police force by the number of citizens it serves and levy you with the amount each year... you'd have to stay out of public parks, stay away from local rec centers, no more visits to National parks, certainly no camping or hunting in the public forests... every highway would be a toll road for you... no employment insurance if you loose your job, no basic retirement plan when you retire, no medicare...

for a start...

your knee jerk reaction will be "hells yeah!" but you obviously can't even begin to understand or appreciate the benefits you've reaped by living in a system thats as well served by even the barest basics of "socialism" as ours is.

A family in Tennessee a few days ago got a heartbreaking taste of a little piece of the kind of world you seem to be proposing as their home burned to the ground for the lack of a $75 fee.

jljoshlee3 says

All well and good, but the US just puts too much emphasis on the profit motive, and the right to accumulate wealth. In reality, when society helps those born poor succeed a more true meritocracy happens, instead of dominant families and last names.

Thats nicely put. I for one look forward to the day when the focus of American life is more than simply 'winning' and turning a 'profit' at the expense of our humanity.

kentm says

I for one look forward to the day when the focus of American life is more than simply ‘winning’ and turning a ‘profit’ at the expense of our humanity.

Never going to happen as long as 30%+ of the electorate is firmly focused on moral issues and the hereafter. O'Donnell has 36% support in DE. That is obviously the base they are working from. 14% more creates their majority -- that's just 1 out of the remaining 5 people.

Bring in a bullshitter like Bush Jr and they can get that 1 person. Bring in a *real* good BSer like Reagan and they can pull in 2.

RayAmerica says

What you fail to realize is that basically all of these programs lead to the ultimate liberal state; pure socialism.

By that same argument, the lack of these programs must lead to feudalism, with corporate-states being the authoritative entity.

Grow the fuck up.

And, yes, monied interests do in fact control the legislative process in America. Even the monied interests say so. Read the recent articles on the topic from Eric Schmidt, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates for some enlightenment. Those are all people with more money than they'll ever need who can freely speak the truth because it won't affect them personally in the slightest.

I won't argue that the smaller businesses who lack lobbying power aren't getting screwed, but it isn't the lower and middle class who is screwing them. Your anger is misdirected. The dishonest half of the monied interests are abusing your anger for their own political agenda.

The *only* thing that matters in economics is outcome. Making life as good as possible for as many people as possible. We tend to express this in simple terms like "Gross Domestic Product" and "Consumer Sentiment" and "Unemployment Rate", but they all amount to the same thing.

If you *believe* that plan X will be better for the overall good than plan Y, then say so, give rational reasoning, and bring some fucking facts and evidence to the table. Economics isn't science, but you can at least analyze individual programs in a scientific way.

So please, drop the bullshit emotional appeal like "Theft" and "Tyranny" and "Slavery". None of those describe taxes, debt, finance, or anything else related to national economics. Calling everyone who doesn't agree with your feudalistic approach to economics a marxist, or using the term "liberal" in a pejorative sense doesn't help your argument, it just annoys people who actually have a brain between their ears.

Alternatively, I could start describing the difficult lives of poor people as "Economic Death Camps", or the "Slavery" bit to refer to the lack of choice that consumers have in so many industries.

Eh, nah, I think I'm just going to be a rational person.

Kevin .... thanks for another .... excuse me .... yawn ... interesting post. You sure are interesting.

The other day I read that our Governments grandiose, Utopian, out of control spending is so huge, and the promises are so big, that it would cost every family in America $31,500 per year for the next 75 years to pay what is currently owed. Gee - Uncle Sam, thanks for your fiscal responsibility.

Yup, its time to drain the swamp!

All you folks so gung-ho on lack of government services, should get ahead of that game. Let us know how you are doing with your efforts to "go Galt!" and live without utilizing any government subsidized services. Of course we may not hear from you after you surrender your internet connection, which benefits from all sorts of government programs.

Honest Abe says

The other day I read that our Governments grandiose, Utopian, out of control spending is so huge, and the promises are so big, that it would cost every family in America $31,500 per year for the next 75 years to pay what is currently owed. Gee - Uncle Sam, thanks for your fiscal responsibility.
Yup, its time to drain the swamp!

Where were you 4 years ago when it was 29,000 per family?

I mean, really, $10 T was OK but $11T -- HOLY SHIT ITS OUT OF CONTROOOOOOOOOOOOL.

I'm not going to defend the deficits, but claiming that there is some new "grandiose utopian" spending is fucking ridiculous. Our current deficits come primarily from the fact that 40% of the money we spend is for fighting wars with boogeymen in the desert and preparing for wars to come with boogeymen in Asia.

Medicare and Social Security are the only "utopian" spending programs that we have, and they're both running surpluses (at least for now).

Please, please please use your energy to demand an end to the military spending ridiculousness. If you feel so inclined to advocate for tearing down social security and medicare, I'll be right there supporting you. Just don't try to lie and pretend that national parks and food stamps are the source of our financial woes.

Hahaha,you brain dead libs will defend out of control, financial irresponsibility till the bitter end. You are in denial (willful and deliberate ignorance). A 6th grader knows you can't spend more than you have without negative consequences.

And yes, out of control military spending needs to be drastically cut as well. It's not making us safer, its making us less safe...kinda like messing with a hornets nest. Who was it that appointed the US taxpayer as the worlds policeman?