Politics, religion: was 2008 Elections...? - enter at your own risk

[R Fogg]

See, this is where I, and seems like many people on this board, differer from. I believe the only rights every human have are, life until you die naturally, to practice your religion (as long as you don't physically harm other people.), and to find a way to feed yourself.

...snip...

What you have suggested is actually socialism. So far it hasn't work and I doubt it will ever work. Any system will only work as far as there are honest people (which is WHY socialism doesn't work.) Remember, life ISN'T FAIR! I wish it was, but it's not

Matthew

Wow Mathew, I didn't realize socialism wasn't working in western europe. Last time I checked the US was ranked behind many of these countries in quality of life and health measures. The fact is there are MANY cases where socialism has succeeded at improving the quality of life of the general population where free market capitalism has failed miserably.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Before you go I would like you to have the last word on one simple question.

If the core of the Fairtax system is valid and this "Hidden tax" is terrible. The Tax cuts would pay for themselves etc etc... If everything they claim is true wouldn't:

Not taxing businesses (with the exception of the additional revenue from illicit transactions) result in the *exact same* removal of the "hidden taxes" and be tax neutral? If it works. Its effects should be clear the first year. Prices would drop, taxes wouldn't need to be raised.

In fact. You could even defer your income tax payments until the end of every month instead of being deducted as a sort of "tax simulation" within your own family.

It would be trivial to backtrack the 'added costs' of still having the IRS.

In fact if we don't adjust the tax rates from their current levels for individuals, we would be collecting additional revenue. So according to the FairTax consortium we should see an enormous windfall at which point we can reduce taxes (or pay down the national debt).

That to me sounds a responsible and empirical method of testing this system. The FairTax system (which involves repealing the 16th amendment as a follow up.) just reeks of ulterior motives since we could accomplish everything it attempts to accomplish albeit less efficiently through existing schemes.

I'm tired of "I told you so's" happening on Iraqi scales.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Actually socialism is working beautifully around the world right now. I think you're thinking of communism which hasn't worked...

Where is it working beautifully? Are talking about all the country's that have "socialist" leaders? (but's government is NOT based on socialism?) Or are you talking about countries that are on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

Let's see, China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam... (this is the Marxist) Those are all really good countries to live in (they, I believe are what you refer to as communist.)

The others are countries Egypt, India, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Syrian, & Venezuela. These are the ones you are talking about? Let's see, Egypt, Syrian, and Venezuela are very oppressive towards anyone who lives there. Venezuela would be suffering if we didn't need so much oil. India has over 90% dirt poor people (the gap between the rich and poor in india is wayyyy higher than in the US.) In my mind, that's not a very successful system. But that's truly a matter of option.

If being rich is so terrible. Don't aspire to be rich! It sounds very much like despite even the current obstacles to wealth you're still pretty motivated to succeed. If I had the option right now between making $50k @ 25% taxes and $200,000 a year at 50% I would choose $200,000!

Who doesn't want to be rich? I doubt very few people would say they wouldn't want to be. However, I don't HAVE to be rich. Personally, I would just like to live comfortably without ever going bankrupt. Yes, if I were rich, I would love it. The bigger thing to me is that I'd like to have more money to give away to those who truly need it.

Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are very smart guys and very deserving guys. But to say that they're 10Billion times more worthy individuals is a bit ridiculous (and both of them acknowledge that). Capitalism breaks down at the extremes. There are always going to be outliers (dentists for instance who are about as lazy as those people you see along the side of the road but make a ridiculous amount of money. (Note this is what my dentist friends tell me.))

Has any system worked so far to break that down? Nope. Once again, I doubt that it ever will. There will always be the haves and have nots because people are greedy.

Clinton raised taxes and the economy surged. Bush lowered taxes and the economy plunged. Bush lowered taxes again and the economy picked up. Bush didn't adjust taxes and the economy came back up! Theoretically tax cuts make sense. In practice our economy is so complex and diverse historically they've had no long term effects.

Bush has also had two huge events happen during his term--9/11 and Katrina. Both time Oil shot up because of it. Currently, our economy runs on oil. If it shoots up, there is not much you can do to help the economy. That's one reason we need to get cars that do not run on oil (Jim, with the speed you all work you could have that out in 2 years and for only $5,000!).

Gaven, thank you for the discussion. It's been fun to exercise my brain on things other than video production. I say that we will have to agree to disagree. You may have the last word.

Matthew

 

[Friedrich Moser]

Hi guys,

tough debates!

1. I am really grateful that as an Austrian citizen (though living across the border in Italy) I have the choice between 4 parties and a group of craps (Haider's gang). Bi-partisan systems tend to become political no-choice-at-all-systems. In Italy for instance you have the choice between wicked Berlusconi and weird Bertinotti (A Comunist! After all what happened in our part of the world in the last century!). For me this is a no-choice, because whatever comes out, the government will be a bad one (as happened and is happening). In the UK at least the Lib.-Dem.s are emerging as an alternative. Labour vs. Tories is a no-choice, because the heart of the politics remains the same. The same for France.

2. who runs for president very likely is not who is going to rule. G.W. is the president, but Cheney rules. Who is going to rule if Obama or Huckabee succeed? Who are the pressure groups and lobbies behind them? Will Obama have a Mrs. Albright in his team for his foreign policy, if needed? I haven't got that much information on this topic by now. I mean, we aren't (better: you aren't) searching for the next great superstar. This is not a casting-show.

3. as for the debate about wars: I AM INDEED VERY GRATEFUL THAT AMERICA (and Britain as well) SAVED US FROM OUR OWN NAZI-RULE AND PROTECTED US AGAINST COMUNISM. I AM INDEED VERY THANKFUL THAT TO ACHIEVE THIS 100 THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS SACRIFICED THEIR LIFE - THE ONLY ONE THEY HAD
but: 1. the difference between WWII and Vietnam or Iraq is the question of respect / equalness regarding the enemy.

4. when having conversations with my dear friend Dwight over in NYC we naturally talk a lot about the current president's administration. On what I have heard from Dwight (it's mostly about economy, cause he's in that) it sometimes seemed to me like this was the take-over of a gang. I think on any decision that is made, in business as in politics as in private life, you have to ask CUI BONUM? Who is profitting? The Bush-Cheney-Oil-Industry-Gang profits a lot from the war in Iraq. All the other issues - abortion, Darwin vs. "Intelligent Design", fire-arms, social security etc. - have to be judged in the same way. Who is profitting? And who isn't?

5. I really wish all Americans that they make the right choice for the sake of the majority of them. There is no volonté generale. There is only a volonté de tous. I wish you a good next administration for the vast majority of you.

6. Anyone interested in joining me for the preparation of a 3x 50 ' documentary about populism, please PM me. I wrote my thesis in contemporary history in this field, ten years ago, and I know that a series on this topic from a historical and global perspective is still lacking and can be presented in a very very interesting way. I will present my project in march to various European broadcasters.

Best regards,

Friedrich

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are a number of good stories today on the current issue of "The Onion":
http://www.theonion.com/content/index

 

[Friedrich Moser]

LOL! Thanks David - great fun!

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Wow Mathew, I didn't realize socialism wasn't working in western europe. Last time I checked the US was ranked behind many of these countries in quality of life and health measures. The fact is there are MANY cases where socialism has succeeded at improving the quality of life of the general population where free market capitalism has failed miserably.

What countries are socialism in western Europe? I just look up France and Germany, but they were both free market economies... Or, are you talking about countries that have socialist in leadership?

What is defined as quality of life? Where is that information? I would love to see it and fully understand it.

Matthew

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

What you have suggested is actually socialism. So far it hasn't work and I doubt it will ever work. Any system will only work as far as there are honest people (which is WHY socialism doesn't work.) Remember, life ISN'T FAIR! I wish it was, but it's notMatthew

Yes, socialism and communism are two different things.

AFAIK, the main difference is that in socialism, the government regulates and plans only the economic aspect of a society's life, while in communism it attempts to regulate ALL aspects of people's lives, which is pretty sick.

Actually what was happening in the former Eastern Bloc was very far away from both socialism and communism, but that's another topic.

What was\is happening in Scandinavian countries, for example, and even the US is closer to this, but they are highly developed capitalist countries - and that's what Marx was imagining - that communism would happen as a natural evolution in capitalism, not by bloody revolutions and endless violence. It was Lenin\Stalin who thought that they can jump directly from feudalism to communism by simply killing anyone who disagreed. Criminals - in theory and practice.

Sometimes a revolution is necessary - for example: The RED Camera . Or when a queen says to its starving subjects that if there's no bread, they can eat cake.

There are very arrogant rich people who are simply "begging" for a communist revolution with the inhumane attitude they have.

The biggest irony is that in my country, for example, the biggest capitalists and the richest people are the former "communists". And the "socialist" party is practically a right-ist party, cause it defends the interests of the richest people . Isn't THAT ironic?! They drive 1 mln. euro Maibach's while old people who were the supposed "builders" of communism are looking for lunch in the dumpster.

Bulgaria is currently considered to be a poor country, but actually this is far from the truth . The average salary here is ~ 300 $ and we have 10 bln. euro external debt, BUT if you come to Sofia, you will notice the numerous new-model Mercedes, BMW and Audi cars on the streets. These people actually keep 50 or maybe even 100 billion euro in foreign banks, noone really knows how much. The same as with Russian oligarchs. And at the same time common people are barely making ends meet.

Criminals.

I strongly agree with what you said - that socialism won't work, because of human nature and the fact that many people are simply not honest.

For socialism to work, a great many people have to simply give up their ego and never cheat, which, unfortunately, won't happen. It's a fairy-tale.

I don't think what I said about care for the homeless is socialism. I think that few people will be satisfied with just a bed, a hot soup and a soap. So they will work, but such system would prevent humans from freezing in winter, eating sh*t and being an ugly picture in cities.

Life sucks, but I don't think we have to like that.

Just my 2 stotinki [soon euro-cents] .

 

[GlennChan]

Gavin,
I think if you take a closer look at the Fairtax proposal you might find it reasonable. One of the problems with the current taxation system is that it has many loopholes and weird distortions. Warren Buffett pays less tax (as a percentage) than many of his employees(!). In that sense I think many people will find that unfair. One Youtube clip explaining this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

For some people, the current system is very regressive since the rich is paying less taxes than the poor (and Warren's taxes is without accounting wizardy, tax shelters, etc.). So the FairTax proposal would be more progressive in that regard.

Now as far as taxing the poor goes, anyone living at the poverty line will effectively pay no tax. (Theoretically anyways.) Which seems to me to be fair.

I don't think that the plan is engineered to benefit rich people at all.

2- The current US tax system is pretty complicated and so you have to hire accountants to deal with filing tax returns. Tax shelters, deductions, myraid laws and loopholes, different rates for different types of income, etc. etc. By simplifying the tax system there is a lower need for accountants and so you have some economic efficiencies there. One study estimates this at 2-5% of the GDP. Granted, their estimate could be off but there would definitely be savings by simplifying the tax system.

3- In practice, there might be some unanticipated consequences to the FairTax system.

4- I understand the cynicism about rich people and republicans/conservatives, but I don't think that the stereotypes of these groups are true of all the individuals. e.g. take a look at the Youtube link... Warren Buffett is down to earth and he has integrity. He is going against his self-interests by saying that the tax system benefits people like him (and he is paying his taxes fairly, without abusing tax shelters).

As far as conservatives goes, many of them claim to be fiscally conservative but I think you know of many cases where they are fiscally irresponsible (e.g. deficits, pork barrel spending, etc.). And a knee-jerk reaction to conservative tax proposals might lead you to believe that all of them make the rich richer and the tax poorer... but I don't believe it's the case here. Especially since the proposal is non-partisan and supported (and opposed) by both democrats and conservatives.

5- In practice, I think the Fairtax system (as proposed) may not pass because:
A- It's complicated to explain to people. It's a hard sell because of that. And even the politicians may not understand it.
B- Rich individuals, hedge fund managers may lobby politicians to completely change its character or not have it pass. Some rich individuals will be paying a lot more tax.
On the other hand, it does remove economic distortions and lead to an overall more efficient economy.
C- How does it look to voters? They might not like a new-fangled system that they don't understand / aren't used to.

But who knows what will happen.

 

[krd]

What countries are socialism in western Europe? I just look up France and Germany, but they were both free market economies... Or, are you talking about countries that have socialist in leadership?

What is defined as quality of life? Where is that information? I would love to see it and fully understand it.

Matthew

Most Western European countries have both capitalist and socialist features. In Scandinavia, they're more socialist than capitalist. Further south, the proportion of each can vary.

Most Republicans, by the way, don't consider France a capitalist economy -- just listen to Rudy Guiliani on "socialized medicine". And the Republican elite complain bitterly about about free French health care and the 4-6 week annual vacations the French are entitled to by law

Of course, there's one crucial difference between the U.S. and France: here, we're afraid of the government. In France, the government is afraid of the people, who routinely hit the streets when they don't like what the government is doing. Makes a big difference, in the end.

As for quality of life statistics -- keep looking. They're widely available. You'll find the U.S. is at the bottom of the heap on most measures, as compared to other industrial democracies. This would include basics like infant mortality, life expectancy, simple measures of health like height (Europeans grow taller than Americans these days), vacation and leisure time, reported levels of satisfaction, levels of industrial pollution, etc. It's a wide index of factors, and the U.S. is at or near the bottom on all of them.

It's time to face facts: the American heyday has passed. If you lived in Europe for a while, you might or might not be happy, but you'd be astonished at the improved quality of life, and the services taken for granted by Europeans, but which are unthinkable in the U.S. -- for example, the revolutionary idea that if you get sick and can't work for a while, you still get paid and won't lose your health insurance.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Any old-time classic-mold Republican with semi-Libertarian tendencies would have been appalled by the Patriot Act

This is what really bothers me about the Republicans that continue to support Bush (thankfully that's fewer every day). It appears they have loyalty to a PARTY/MAN and not IDEAS and EVIDENCE. Just 10 years ago it seems every Republican was shouting "rule of law" and now these same people defend torture and corruption and lies.

Clearly everything surrounding Valerie Plame is a proven lie and a crime of the highest order. Outing a spy who was trying to defend us against WMD in Iran AND the entire infrastructure and contacts surrounding her? Friggin' Fox News attacked OUR spy on a regular basis!

How any Republican can live with and forgive that CRIME (and yes THAT was a CRIME according to the court and the Director of the CIA) stuns me.

And whatever happened to smaller government and fiscal responsibility?

Apparently, many Republicans can be reprogrammed to believe nearly anything overnight.

(again, I'm not too thrilled with Dems in office who continue to let Bush get away with everything... which says a lot about their principles)

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Gavin,
I think if you take a closer look at the Fairtax proposal you might find it reasonable...[...]

I find the concept reasonable. It could theoretically be made to operate within what I find to be morally responsible guidelines. The problem I have with is it making *any* assumptions and speculations and factoring those into the cost.

If we're going to overhaul our tax system it has to be based on the worst case scenario. Businesses don't drop prices. The economy doesn't explode. Everything stays exactly the same.

Speculative entreprenuership is the heart of our country. It drives our economy and our success. But when it comes to the long term survival of our country and its citizens I'm not going to gamble our fortunes on the roullette wheel.

The FairTax code (while thoroughly researched) makes all kinds of assumptions that historically simply aren't true. Blaim it on Katrina, Blaim it on 9-11, Blaim it on anything. There'll always be something to blaim a bad economy on. When a conservative is in charge it's because of the oppressive tax laws or external powers. When it's a liberal it's the opressive taxes. When the economy goes up I hear "oh it was Reagan's tax cuts in the 80s finally kicking in." Most economists are about as accurate at predicting and planning an economy as an astrologer. They're really good however at explaining why yesterday's giant news item of the day is the reason for whatever happened yesterday.

"So and So announced they would be doing poorly this quarter, the dow took a dip as a result and the nasdaq was up 10 points." Thank you captain obvious!

It's all based on "Best Case". That's the sort of naive irresponsibility that liberals used to be famous for.

You give it generous allowances to ensure it'll remain tax neutral (and give a huge tax refund at the end of the year if it's positive) and I would go for it.

Also like I said, the exact same economic explosion would occur (and drop in prices) by eliminating all taxes on business. That would be the safe place to test the waters not by changing our constitution and trapping us in a pipe dream.

 

[Joel Kaye]

BOOOOOO!!!

Yes let's tax the people who can barely afford food the same as people who are deciding between a porsche and Ferrari.

Well, we have to scrap the IRS. We spend billions administering taxes which is a waste. The 45,000 page tax code benefits the RICH. It's gotta go.

Flat tax vs. sales tax is tough.

I'd like to a system crafted so the bottom 10% doesn't pay and the top 1/2 of 1% pays through the nose. The most powerful middle class in America's history was during the same time that the top tax rate was 90%.

Facts are the facts.

The people most hammered by the current tax system are the affluent... they should get a tax break and the super wealthy should pay it. Call it an anti-aristocracy tax. That's what the founding fathers were trying to avoid (among other things).

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I would fully support a 90% Estate tax for estates > $4m.

Use it or lose it. That's what I say.

 

[Joel Kaye]

The larger problem is the general corrupt state of American politics.

I'll agree with that... but the type and level of Bush corruption is without equal. Reagan had the largest number of criminals left in his wake. But Bush has continually appointed inexperienced and inept people to run the largest organizations... like FEMA. He had 24 year olds handing out millions of dollars in Iraq. Everyone needs to see a movie called "No End in Sight". Bush insiders tell how Bush and his team ignored all expert advice on how to handle Iraq. They make the case Iraq may have been winnable and plans were in place to do so - but Bush and his team had other plans.
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/index.html


The movie is unique in that it does not argue going into Iraq was wrong. It just documents Bush's execution.

Republicans like to say Gov't doesn't work. Then they get elected and do their best to prove it.

 

[David Birdy]

I'll agree with that... but the type and level of Bush corruption is without equal. Reagan had the largest number of criminals left in his wake. But Bush has continually appointed inexperienced and inept people to run the largest organizations... like FEMA. He had 24 year olds handing out millions of dollars in Iraq. Everyone needs to see a movie called "No End in Sight". Bush insiders tell how Bush and his team ignored all expert advice on how to handle Iraq. They make the case Iraq may have been winnable and plans were in place to do so - but Bush and his team had other plans.
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/index.html

The movie is unique in that it does not argue going into Iraq was wrong. It just documents Bush's execution.

Republicans like to say Gov't doesn't work. Then they get elected and do their best to prove it.

I have to ask.................

How is it that MOST intelligent Americans agree with your statement, but the lies go on and they keep raking in Billions a day...........?

 

[R Fogg]

What countries are socialism in western Europe? I just look up France and Germany, but they were both free market economies... Or, are you talking about countries that have socialist in leadership?

What is defined as quality of life? Where is that information? I would love to see it and fully understand it.

Matthew

Matthew, I am using your definition of socialism:

karapetkov:There should be no homeless people in a civilized society. Every human has a right to a warm bed, food and means of hygiene

MACVILLE: What you have suggested is actually socialism.

Technically almost all countries whether they call themselves communist, socialist, or free market are mixing socialist and free market approaches. So socialism in the dictionary definition is sort of hard to find in the modern global economy with cuba being a possible exception. (but not the best argument against socialism)

In popular conservative venacular, which seems to be your useage, socialism appears to be defined as government services beyond facilitating free trade and basic public safety.

Here is the link to the latest UN Human development index, http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_en_complete.pdf
Page 244 gets you to the basic rankings. You should note that many of the countries at the top of the UN HDI are more heavily invested in socialist approaches to solving domsetic issues like hunger, homelesness, & poverty. Also you should note that communist cuba ranks very close to the US in measures such as literacy, life expectancy & child mortality well ahead of other small, poor countries like Haiti, Honduras and Guatemala who have been encouraged (economically or militarily) to embrace free market economies.

Link to the economists Quality of Life Index 2005 which shows a similar (though older) trend http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf


best
Ryley

 

[Russ McDonald]

America will always be a free market republic, it will never be a european style socialist system... Ever! It's to large, all the european nations don't come close to our population. Currently roughly 95% of the country our employed. Not everybody a CEO of a multi-national corporation, but not everybody is flipping burgers either.

European socialist states aren't nirvana. If they were, they wouldn't be people standing in line to immigrate to the US. The problem is in socialist state, the State is the most important. Those that live in the socialist state, function to support the State. The Individual gets lost, health care is a good example. Many people die waiting for their turn for care. One of the largest growth markets in Europe is private health insurance... Why?

I have a friend who immigrated from Scotland. He related to me what I thing is the Achilles heal of socialism, after he completed his basic education there was a test that everyone took if you did well you were of to the University and higher education, if you had a bad day, trade school or digging ditches. Though socialism promises everything it can not deliver on that promise.

The major problem in this country is people have an inflated sense of entitlement. Multiply that by the fact that people who can vote do not. With only 55% of registered voters voting, no significant change will ever take place. Incumbency and apathy are the greatest threats to our Republic. That's why congress has a lower approval rating than Bush.

The Politics of Hope is a nice catch phrase, Senator Obama hasn't been asked any tough questions. One min. responses and 30 sec. rebuttals are a joke. As the race tightens and the field narrows you better have more that a great smile and snappy slogan, you have to have substance. I haven't seen it yet from him, but that could change. Carter was the same way and he was a complete disaster.

It is clear there are two ways the Presidency is looked at.

1. A hyper idealistic post, full of utopian promise, that can never be obtained.

2. A large and terrible responsibility that requires broad shoulders in order to bare.

Thats why Bobby Kennedy is so revered today, he didn't survive to disappoint anyone. Some would say I'm being cold or callus, but that is the cost of leadership. You can't be all things to all people. Being the President will always be about making life or death decisions with incomplete information.

There will always be the Joels of the world who will apply mico-hindsight. They see the world through blinders and avoid at all cost the mirrors that lay in their path, because they don't like the reflection. They try to justify bad behavior, by sighting worse behavior. An attitude that infects both sides of the political isle.

 

[number6]

But there should be no homeless people on the streets, that is not civilized.

There are plenty in my country, but it's strange that there are also a lot in a rich country like the US.

That's true, but I wonder if it is not a mental, rather than a social problem?

Still if you interfere in everyone's life who has a mental problem, then many who have posted on this thread would be taken away in straight jackets...:w00t: :usd: :innocent:

 

[Russ McDonald]

That's true, but I wonder if it is not a mental, rather than a social problem?

Still if you interfere in everyone's life who has a mental problem, then many who have posted on this thread would be taken away in straight jackets...:w00t: :usd: :innocent:

There will always be homeless and hopeless people, always. Help surounds them but they will never reach out. Why, I don't think I will ever get my head around that attitude.

That being the case is your society judged by the person who is willing to give the hand up. Or is to be judge by the person who by choice to turn their back on the help. If your measure is the former than my nation is full to the brim with those who will lend a hand, are more effective and more successful at it than any government agency.