who are the rightful owners of the nation's wealth?
By diana on May 3, 2010 | In poly-ticks
this is a good question.
I hadn't thought about what this meant, or the implications of it. Becky--in a doomed attempt to prove to me that liberals hate the rich--asked the question. What follows are a few of her comments/questions. They were in different parts of the conversation, so they might not flow very well as I have them here. However, I think they raise an interesting question (not related to our "hatred of the rich").
...Please address my point about the government's right to interfere in consensual relationship between an employer and an employee. If both stand to benefit, and one WANTS to work at an AGREED price for the other, should the government have the right to tell them they cannot do it?...Do you believe those who have wealth are not the rightful owners of it? What you have doesn't belong to you?
To examine the implications here, let's put together a scenario.
Scenario A:
You have a widget business in Ghettotown. Ghettotown is in Anarchistland. Your widgets are decent, but not quality. The reasons for this are myriad. Building them takes skill, so training new hires is itself an investment. Because you live in Ghettotown, you don't make much money, because the cost of living and median income is very low; if you want to sell your widgets, you have to make them accessible to your customer base. This means you cannot pay much to have them made. The low wage you're forced to offer has a fairly high attrition rate, of course, and combined with the investment you make in training, you have trouble breaking even. You struggle along for a couple of years, then crime rises in Ghettotown. You lose a few workers to violence in the streets, and some more who leave the area. You pay to have more workers trained, but your attrition rate doesn't go back down because street crime is still high. There is no artificially-mandated minimum wage, so you drop your wage in an effort to break even. You lose more workers. The ones who stay work less for the dropped wage, and the new ones you hire (for less) require as much of an initial investment for training as the previous ones--who had more incentive to work for you.
This is not a winning scenario. Let's try another.
Scenario B:
With the same business in the same place, you recognize that you need to provide incentive for your workers to stay with you. You offer a competitive wage. You consider offering medical insurance, but you don't make enough to afford it. You get good work in return for your pay, as you can command the more talented, dedicated workers. On average, they stay with you longer than workers stay with firms that do not offer as much, so you get a decent return for your hiring investment. At this point, you have the choice to improve the quality of your widgets or to expand your business. Everything's going great!
Then the crime rate rises (remember--you're in Anarchyland). You lose some people to violence, but there are plenty to take their place (it is Ghettotown, after all; there are countless applicants for every paying job). You may have some unplanned expenses in extra training to replace the lost workers, but overall, the widget business is good.
In either case....
Your customers start moving away. The crime is bad and most can't get jobs. When they can, they can't afford your widgets, unless you have a monopoly on a necessity of life (in which case, lucky you! It isn't illegal, after all). The economy in Ghettotown worsens. You can't sell enough to pay your workers, so you have to downsize. As you're considering your options, civil war breaks out. You think about hiring guards to protect your business, but you cannot afford them. You lose your building--and your livelihood--to arson. The insurance company enacts recission because there was a pre-existing condition (civil war). There is no government, so of course, the insurance company can do this at will without repercussions. You end up bankrupt.
It's all cause and effect.
I'd argue that the "rightful owners" of the wealth are the ones who earn it. That's the "simple" answer. But it doesn't stop there. This is business we're talking about, after all.
Consider the problem of arson. If you don't pay what the government is asking for fire protection, you don't get it.
But the government has a monopoly on that! They can demand any price they want! Yup! :D No problem! Let's have several fire departments in areas that can afford them and none in areas that cannot. Does that work for you? (It does only if you're in one of the areas that can afford several...kinda like you--Becky--with your health care options.) Of course, this scenario doesn't preclude monopolies, so we haven't actually solved the problem, have we? If we apply this principle on a grand scale, all we've done is create irreparably impoverished, unprotected communities throughout the US.
Sometimes, it is necessary, for the good of all, to choose the lesser of the evils. When it comes to required services, like water and electricity, the only way to ensure that all at least have minimum services is to have the government run it (or have the government fund a non-profit organization whose duty it is to provide those services to all). I agree that the government does not necessarily provide the most efficiency--I can just as easily point to the nightmare of getting permits to work on a home I own, or just going to the DMV to get my tags renewed--but I do not see how the free market will, without government interference, provide these services to all. And I cannot accept that some people deserve them while others do not.
(If that is where we differ--that some people deserve basic services while others do not--this might be a good time to say so. As a matter of fact, you might just limit your response to that, because that's a whole 'nother ballgame.)
There are some basic services I don't want our government to consider releasing government controls on now or ever. They include, but are not limited to: public safety, police protection, trial by jury, control/protection of the convicted, water, electricity, civil rights, and fire protection. (I'm open to arguments on the minimum wage; right now, however, I have trouble envisioning a better world without it.)
This is where the "whose wealth is it?" argument comes to a crux, in my opinion. You (Becky) have acknowledged that you believe in some taxes. This is good. It is also acknowledgement that the wealthy have a right to only some of their wealth, because the government has a right to the rest. The question is, then, this: How much of the wealth does the government have a right to?
The answer, like it or not, is this: As much as they want to take.
Really. Read on.
When you set up a business or make money in the US, you are automatically depending upon the government of the US to protect your interests (or at least some of them). You pay for that.
Why is your business in Ghettotown? Because you can't afford to set it up somewhere else. To set up a business in the US, you must pay. Instead of thinking of it as your money that you're being bilked out of, think of it as rent. If the rent gets too great (for the location you're paying for, that is; as with all business, you'll pay several times the rent to do business in Richtown that you will in Ghettotown), you can jolly well close up business and move to a cheaper location.
Basically, Becky, what I see you arguing is that you want adherence to natural economics simultaneous with special rights. It doesn't work that way. You yourself have said this. Economics works on unalterable principles. If the government says, "You're making more money, so I'm taking more," the business has a choice. The business (and its owner) can relocate to a country with lower taxes (and get what he's paying for--you yourself have repeatedly pointed out this principle to me), or he can suck it up and pay what his "landlord" requires if he wants to stay.
You can't have it both ways. So...which do you believe in? "Fairness" in government taxing (that is, requiring the same "rent" percentage for $1B businesses as they do for $100k businesses, even though the natural market doesn't work that way), or natural economics?
Pick one. Inquiring minds await your wisdom.
d
49 comments
Hi,
First one has to define wealth. Also, if one wants to agree or disagree with Mr. Obama, one needs to understand what he means by wealth.
Wealth encompasses not just money earned for oneself or others but also resources both tapped and untapped. What else would be included in your definition of wealth?
Lorraine
“Hi! This is the government calling. We just wanted to let you know that starting next month we’re going to be charging you more for fire protection. See, a couple of years ago we bought this really cool boat so people here could travel across the lake and see fancy shows and watch hockey, and people across the lake could come here and do neat stuff too. Funny thing, though - nobody here could afford to ride the boat, and nobody there wanted to come here and do neat stuff. Who knew? Anyway, we still owe $30 million for the boat so we’re going to charge you more for fire protection until it’s paid off. Then we’ll think about reducing your rates. But then again, there’s this really cool performing arts center and bus station we’ve had our eye on… Anyway, thank you for your support.”
I don’t mind paying for things where there’s a clear need - even things I don’t personally use, but might need some day. I’m even okay with paying a little extra to help cover my neighbors’ needs now and then. But having to fork over cash for useful stuff like road repairs and ambulance service to have it spent on somebody else’s pipe dream causes a lot of resentment.
Dave
Good point, Dave. I acknowledge that there is corruption in the system.
My point, though, is that you pay to “rent” space in a country the same as you pay to “rent” that land from its owner. If what you’re getting isn’t worth what you’re paying, you do what all businessmen do: you go find a better deal.
Becky has pointed this out: if taxes go too high, the wealthy leave. My response is that yes, they will…but there’s FAR more involved than just how much money they’re paying. They will do a cost-benefit analysis. It’s all economics (and there’s far more involved in economics than just MONEY). If businesses here can get financial/physical safety/protection needed somewhere else where they can get good, dependable workers and produce a good product and make a better or comparable profit and pay fewer taxes, they will go.
But to say people who are just upset that they’re paying taxes for things they think those taxes shouldn’t be used for and will thus up and move accordingly is silly. If you don’t like how your taxes are being used, there are more sound-business ways to deal with it here, like political involvement.
d
Hi D, you put a lot of thought into your examples, but you’re arguing a “straw man.” I’ve never begrudged taxes for necessary government services, such as fire and police. We all value and benefit from those. Providing for the common defense is one of the big things that government has always been required to do (fire, police, military, border patrol).
I didn’t “lose the argument” about liberals hating the rich, I had to spend some time working on a database. Although, why should I earn money, if it doesn’t “belong” to me?
No, the government cannot take “as much as they want” as long as people have a choice of whether to produce it or not. I’ve given you examples of this in other countries, and you agree that there is migration between states for tax reasons. Also, I know people who forgo working to stay in a current tax bracket. So no, the government cannot take as much as it wants, because people can choose not work, or to move.
As Lorraine asked . . . define “wealth.” For the sake of consistency, lets define it here as a person’s “earned income” (or a business’s profits). It’s wealth that you voluntarily work for and get paid by your employer, or profit from goods and services that people want or need.
What Obama seems to want is NOT more taxes for government services, but more taxes for direct “wealth transfer.” His comments about “when we share the wealth, it’s better for everybody” and “return the Nation’s wealth to its rightful owners” and “at some point you’ve earned enough” all seem to indicate something beyond just more taxes for necessary services.
You’ve never answered my question who is the “rightful owner” who Obama wants to “return” the wealth to? There is no way you can come up with an answer from you straw man argument that fits that question.
Wealth transfer programs include the “entitlements” such as Social Security, welfare and unemployment benefits. These programs “transfer wealth” directly from ONE person’s EARNED income to another PERSON as UNearned income. Social Security is generational wealth transfer . . . from the current working population to the retired population. Don’t say “I hate old people” just because I’m talking about this. Let’s talk numbers and dollars. When SS first started, life expectancy was about age 61 . . . and the age to “draw” SS was 65, and there were about 30 workers for every retiree. Now, life spans in the US are 75+ and the retirement age is still about 65 and there are only 3 workers for every retiree and it will soon be down to two. There is no “SS fund” because congress always “borrows” from it. The US has already started paying out more than it brings in.
That scenario is unsustainable, no matter how-well meaning the policy. That’s just ONE entitlement. There are many other entitlements and “wealth transfer” mechanisms. Wealth transfer includes our progressive taxation that gives “refunds” to people who didn’t pay any taxes in the first place. Half the country already pays NO income taxes, and 10% pay 70% of all income taxes! The GSA housing program gave loans to high-risk people with no down payment, and the government subsidized those loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, basically a wealth-transfer, because risk is a cost.
Any time you subsidize risk, you get more risky behavior. I read a news article about a job recruiter who finds jobs for unemployed people and she’s having a hard time getting them to TAKE the jobs because their unemployment benefits allow them to be too picky. Oh, that job’s to far away . . . or it doesn’t pay enough, or some such excuse. The government is subsidizing the risk of waiting for the perfect job. And now people can get up to two years of benefits . . . for NOT working. Subsidize not-work and you’ll get MORE not-work (than you otherwise would have.) Subsidize retirement and people will save less or retire earlier. Subsidize land non-use and you get more land non-use. Subsidize union pay and you get more unions. Subsidize buying a new cars and destroying used ones, and you get more destroyed cars (wasted!). Any time there government meddles in economics, they unbalance the equation . . . an unbalanced economy is a wasteful economy, and a wasteful economy COSTS us more than it should . . . in lost jobs and wasted taxes.
What I want is “fairness” . . . equality before the law. Businesses AND people should have equal protection under the law, whether they are large or small, wealthy or not-so-much. A larger business shouldn’t be handicapped just because they are large. Large businesses provide a huge share of the jobs in the country . . . why would we WANT to handicap them? The term “more fair” is an oxymoron, either it’s fair, or it’s not.
Your business argument seemed to be from the standpoint of the business as only a “consumer” of government benefits (fire and police services). The business is really the PROVIDER of those services . . . because that’s where the government GETS the money in the first place. The “provider” in a family is the one who PAYS for the food and necessaries. It’s not the farmer the grocer.
Businesses in this country are the PROVIDERS of the government services . . . for everyone. Businesses are the provider of ALL JOBS, because either a job is in the private sector, or it’s public . . . and any public sector job is paid for through taxes on the private sector. Anything we can do to make it EASIER for businesses . . . will make it BETTER for all of us (more jobs and more taxes for necessary services!).
Becky, no.
Not a straw man. And you missed Lorraine’s point. This doesn’t surprise me. I can’t remember the last time you managed to grasp a point I’ve made, and I’ve been trying for months.
d
Hi Diana,
When we talk of personal income as earned wealth or national welth and rankle at the thought of government taking away any of our hard-earned income, sometimes we forget that there are moms who work two full time jobs, ride buses to get their kids to and from school and/or daycare, daycare that they must pay for, then take home minimum wage. They too work hard. Are they any less deserving of the basics; health care, food, lodging and adequate quality education for themselves and their family than a person who works at a very highly paid job or someone who inherited their wealth through a lucky accident of birth?
It is time to stop blaming the poor for being poor. Surely to goodness we have grown beyond that.
Helplessness and hopelessness are learned, sometimes from experience sometimes from their “betters.” These life-views zap the will and energy to do better and sometimes, better just isn’t possible, no matter what.
This all seems to reintroduce your topic of how much ones success is luck and how much it is the result of personal effort. With absolutely no opportunity, success is not possible.
Good blog stream. I still don’t think earned income and national wealth are the same thing. Somehow I think Obama meant more than person income when he discussed wealth or is that all that Americans think they have of worth, their paychecks?
L.
Yeah, Lorraine. That was the point I made to Becky earlier (on Facebook), which you made here, which she pointedly misunderstood, etc. I love her very much; she’s a wonderful person. But discussing politics like her is like questioning a belligerent witness.
She hasn’t quite got the hang of discussion yet. :)
I see no reason to assume Obama meant that he’ll Robin Hood taxes–which is a pity, because progressive taxation consistently improves the economy (says Ravi Batra).
d
Hi Diana,
The US Economist who won the latest Nobel prize for same (K: can you help me out here?) has a blog in which he talks about the widening gap between rich and poor in the US as a function of government policy. He also writes clearly about Roosevelt’s actions that resulted in the economic and numerical growth of the middle class in America. Those same policies worked as designed to lessen the gap between rich and poor. No first world country should have a Joad family.
The rise of the middle class in the US during and after WW2 was not natural evolution, it was a result of concerted political policies and actions. Just as the drop in real income, when adjusted for inflation, for the middle class is a result of policies that favour the rich and disadvantage all others.
Do we really believe some people who work a long day are worth millions per year while another who works just as long and hard is only worth minimum wage with no benefits? Are the children of each group worth such differing amounts?
Again, not natural evolution, just politics.
Lorraine
Hi Lorraine :) I love Diana too, but she’s like a blind witness. ;) I’m trying to make her see the light, but my spit and mud lacks a certain something.
Obama does mean personal income when he discusses wealth. Here’s his latest off-prompter slip:
” . . . I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money . . .”
He lets his feelings show when he’s off the teleprompter.
Perhaps this is one major difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Conservatives think the government works for the people. Liberals think people work so the government can have what it wants, i.e. what you said about income: “the government can take whatever it wants” . . . does that mean they have not only the power but the right? Does it mean your income is theirs, not yours? It’s only yours if they LET you keep it? Doesn’t that make us slaves to the government?
Hmmm. I have an employee who asked me the other day (he makes $30,000 a year and works his but off for it) if he would now pay less for his medicaid insurance (required deduction) because now he would also have to get health insurance. I had to tell to him, “No, actually your SS (fica) just went up to 7.65% (of course I pay ANOTHER 7.65%). So 15.3% OF EVERY DOLLAR EARNED in this country goes to a retirement program along with inumerable entitlements never imagined in the original program. Now, does anybody really think this will make him want to work even harder to create his own ‘wealth’? Keep in mind his standard of living is only slightly higher than your average person on wealfare, food stamps, and medicaid. Now I know you all have calulators. Put 15.3% of your salary for 30 (looking more like 35 for most now) years (don’t forget to figure in compounded interest)and tell me - would that give you a decent retirement? - you bet. Come on Diana, do the math. This doesn’t even include “taxes". So where do we stop? Wealth “redistribution” is wrong. It’s stealing - plain and simple. In your examples the answer is MOVE - like I did, like you did. If your customers move - FOLLOW THEM. Go where there is a reasonable market, with reasonable services, and reasonable work force. Like CHINA. Why do people think companies move overseas - they hate America? No - it’s because our government is in the game for themselves. Government has in fact become a business, a parisitic one, enforced by weaponry paid for by our own tax dollars.
I think Becky was pretty close.. But the solutions are not that difficult. How about EDUCATION - a service we SHOULD pay for with tax dollars? How come government consistantly fails in this endevor? Answer: An educated society is the hardest to govern. Also, the fire station example doesn’t hold water.. these are local governments, not federal. In NC we have a private FD, all volunteer - no federal or state subsidies, and the resonse time is one of the best around. So why is it that people who are on state or federal aid can’t join a volunteer fire department? Are they just too busy? (I am not , of course talking about physically challenged people here.)
All this conversation disregards the constitutional idea that taxing a personal wage is illegal in the first place. The defense of the nation (a real responsibility of federal government) is paid for soley through corporate taxes, not personal.
I love you, but in my humble opinion, you’re way off on this one.
Rog
Yeah Rog. You know I love you, too. I think you’re way off, too. :)
Just to give you some idea of what I’m responding to, here:
You said: “The defense of the nation (a real responsibility of federal government) is paid for soley through corporate taxes, not personal.”
YOU HATE BIG BUSINESS!
Now. Considering that no matter how you explain that that is not your position, I continue to accuse you of hating big business. This happens over MONTHS of continuous conversation. You keep asking me where I get that, and I point out that you want the corporations taxed, and of course, that means they invest less and the unemployment rate goes up because they have to compensate SOMEWHERE, of course, which means you essentially believe there’s a point where they have made enough money. Ergo, YOU HATE BIG BUSINESS.
Let’s hear how you deal with that. :)
I’m also interested in how Becky deals with your agreement with her on general issues, but your admitted hatred of big business.
Go! :D
d
“Obama does mean personal income when he discusses wealth. Here’s his latest off-prompter slip:
” . . . I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money . . .” “
We’re talking about progressive taxation here, which I completely agree with (see Roger’s FINE example of why people who are middle class or below have enough trouble just paying their bills). The more money you make–all else being equal–the more disposable income you have. I find it interesting that Rog would make such an eloquent argument against my extreme “the government can take anything it wants” statement when I suspect he himself is against progressive taxation. (I’m not sure. No, Rog?)
I’m very much in favor of it. I believe I should pay more taxes than people who make less than I do. I believe I should pay a higher percentage in taxes, as a matter of fact.
My point is–and you seem to be disagreeing, for some reason I can’t understand–is that the government IS part of doing business. You can like it or not, but ultimately, the government decides what “rent” they will charge you, and you decide whether what you’re getting is worth what you’re paying.
IT’S NATURAL–NOT ARTIFICIAL–ECONOMICS, BECKY. Supply and demand, and all that. The government you choose for your business is just another business decision. Your examples prove my point. If the “rent” gets too great, the business packs it in and moves.
What are you finding objectionable about this? I’m admittedly punchy from lack of sleep (it’s PAPER WEEK), but really…you want to control the government and tell it that it can’t charge you what it says you owe, but it doesn’t work like that. It’ll take all the market will bear.
I can appreciate that the both of you want to believe it doesn’t work that way. I respect that you WANT to think the government doesn’t have that right. However, I’m just acknowledging reality. You can deny it if you like, but that doesn’t change reality.
It’s simple economics, Becky. ;)
d
“Perhaps this is one major difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Conservatives think the government works for the people.”
Can you expand on that with specific examples, please?
“Liberals think people work so the government can have what it wants….”
Um. The two are not opposites, Becky. I also didn’t argue that it would continue to be viable if it took anything it wants, without regard to what the market will bear. You do love to oversimplify my position. (Do you do it to piss me off, or is that just a perk?)
“i.e. what you said about income: “the government can take whatever it wants” . . . does that mean they have not only the power but the right?”
Until there is viable opposition, they have the right, as that comes with the power. Viable opposition can come from the ballot box, or it can come from boycotts, or it can come from armed revolution (although I’d hope our government system keeps us from letting it get that far).
“Does it mean your income is theirs, not yours?”
Pretty much. Think about it, Becky. If the government says you owe $15k in taxes but you refuse to pay more than $5k (for whatever reason), what happens? Who will win this one?
Again…I respect your desire to believe that YOU own your income, but the reality says you’re wrong.
Are you following what I’m saying yet? Or have you failed once again to grasp my basic idea because you’re so busy disagreeing that you are not listening to what I’m actually saying?
“It’s only yours if they LET you keep it?”
Yep. that’s what I’m saying. If you wish to disagree, you just, oh, stop paying taxes for a few years. Test your theory concerning reality. (This is not unlike arguing with a person who suggests that you can’t know what is reality and what is not, and suggesting that they just run full force into a wall and get back to you to tell you who won–fantasy or the wall?)
“Doesn’t that make us slaves to the government?”
No. Your hyperbole gets old and it doesn’t paint you in a flattering light.
It makes us taxpayers in a democratic republic.
d
HI Diana,
While this may not be couples’ therapy, it does remind me of the suggestion that when one starts to tell the other what other thinks ("Conservatives think this while you Liberals think/believe this.") it gets dangerous because the only proper spokesperson for your feelings and beliefs is you, not me. Because I can’t really read your mind, I shouldn’t be arguing by saying what your opinion is. I can argue mine but, out of respect, will leave the other person to argue their point of view. If I don’t, the argument then changes to one of how you are not stating my beliefs accurately, rather than debating the original point.
It’s early, no coffee yet so I may not have expressed that clearly but this “I believe, you believe” thing does seem to be seeping in here.
L.
I don’t hate big business. But the main reason it CAN be advantageous for a business to set up in the US (or even MOVE HERE) is that this country was founded on property rights (both corporate entities and individuals) with the promise that government would only “regulate” (to make regular, not destroy, by the way). Corporations are allowed to, expected to, and encouraged to re-invest their income. Hence the corporate tax deduction (we all hear “oh, that’s a write-off"). If a corporation makes money, without reinvesting, they are taxed. Fair, no? Either way, they contribute to the growth, and/or well being of the country. And as the security of the nation is paramount to property rights, it seems a good deal to me. As to the graduated tax system: It does certainly seem reasonable to have a graduated tax, as those of us fortunate enough to have expendable income can give a bigger share without undue burden…BUT it also becomes a diminishing return and self-defeats if the graduation is so steep that folks purposely try to produce less (therefore make less)because their hourly wage (or daily, or annual) goes down if they work. Personally, I work all the time. If Obama rallies to include people who make 250k a year in the ‘rich’ catagory, I will retire, lay off 3 full time people, and 20 other contractors will have to seek employment elsewhere - where is the advantage to the country in that?. So my point is, it has to be a DEPRECIATING graduation. Meaning the percent rise based on income has to diminish. Therefore when I wake up in the morning, I can say ‘If I work hard to produce, I will reap the reward’. If I can’t say that, I’ll just spend the day in bed eating bon-bons and watching old movies. After all, I could.
Oh, I know you don’t hate big business, Rog. I was just pointing out the accusations Becky throws at me (and liberals in general) when any of us have the temerity to suggest that the rich should be taxed more. (She has yet to figure out that differing opinions on who should pay more taxes and why does not equate to “X hates the rich” or whatever.)
That’s what started this post, so I thought it might help explain my response.
Can you explain–maybe with an example–of what you mean by depreciating graduation?
Love and miss you, babe.
d
Diana I never said YOU hate the rich, but I did say “liberals” do . . . and that was a broad-brush generalization for which I apologize. I should have said SOME liberals/leftists . . . and then provided examples (which I did on Facebook).
Roger’s examples are more salient than mine. It is a matter of degree.
You said somewhere that “progressive” taxes are “good” but you didn’t define either term, nor provide sources.
Taxing the rich at 99% is “progressive” . . . but is it “good?” I think not, because at that point, both you and Roger agree . . . they would leave.
Our mutual goal should be the best economy possible, to create the most jobs possible for the most people possible.
Progressive taxes may be “good” but excessive-progressive taxes are bad. What is the “tipping point?”
Taxing to provide services for all is good (that is NOT redistribution), taxing for the helpless or hopeless is fine, but taxing for the purpose of “redistribution” of one person’s hard-earned dollars to another person for NOT working is counterproductive, in the most literal sense.
You frequently cite that you would be happy to pay a higher percentage of taxes. That’s very generous of you. But you offering for OTHERS to pay a higher percentage of THEIR taxes shows a sort of hubris (everyone should be like ME!). Not everyone with your level of pay has your level of disposable income. Some have much larger student debt, or larger families with more dependents, or any number of mishaps or needs that take from their salaries.
From your own quote, “If the “rent” gets too great, the business packs it in and moves.” Who benefits in THAT situation? Not the government with the oppressive requirements . . . but the location to which the business, um, took its business.
I find great irony in the fact that you, Becky, accuse me of hubris. :) You are the one who has repeatedly said that you take most of the credit for what you’ve accomplished in life and therefore the poor who haven’t made it as far are culpable for their own poverty. That is the height of arrogance.
The challenge to find even one liberal saying he hates the rich still stands, by the way. :)
On progressive taxes, we agree. I’m amused that you cannot see that. I agree that if the taxes are TOO “progressive,” those who can will move away, and if they cannot, they will lower their own earnings. My point is that what our government decides to tax is all part of natural economics, in the same sense that a landlord in Manhattan will charge you maybe 100X for rent what you’d pay in Mobile, Alabama. If the rent is too high, you move or you go out of business.
The difference here seems to be that you’re arguing who will benefit IF something happens, and I’m just talking about HOW it works. Can you see this?
You don’t OWN your land. We call it that, but that isn’t true. You just RENT it from the government. Don’t believe me? Stop paying property taxes and watch what happens.
d
Come to think of it, Becky, I’m a little shocked that you think your money is your own. Jesus said it is Caesar’s–which I take to mean “the government” in general.
Mat 22:15 ¶ Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.
Mat 22:16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Mat 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?
Mat 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
Mat 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
d
Haven’t been following this too closely, been in line all day at the welfare office. On the way to pick up my food stamps in my Cadillac. Have a good weekend til Monday when all you suckers have to go back to work.
Diana,
Heh, you really know how to rub salt in a wound. (Grin) Caesar didn’t even represent the government God had installed in Israel; Rome was a conquering empire. The entire discussion was about tribute (i.e. “protection money") rather than tax. Talk about taxation without representation!
Dave
I know, Dave. :) As a matter of fact, I just told Matt (as an aside) that Becky would make a similar argument. You beat her to it.
Of course, why they were paying it is just redirection and doesn’t change Jesus’ clear meaning that your money isn’t yours–it’s the government’s.
d
Know what program I wish we’d defund? Medicare. What a giant socialistical garbage program that is. Bunch of flaming liberal lazyasses collecting MY hard earned welfare check on that program I’ll tell ya.
Public schools too, privatize ‘em all.
Definition of Economics: a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
Taxes are not included in that definition. Taxes are external to the equation.
It’s hard discussing topics with Liberals if they don’t even understand basic definitions. :\
People make economic decisions based on the perceived value they get for something they purchase. That’s how things “naturally” get priced . . . “natural economics.”
If the government sets a price, it’s the OPPOSITE of natural economics. Whether it’s price supports or price ceilings, (or salary minimums or salary caps). Can you not SEE that?
You already agreed with me that the government shouldn’t interfere with a consensual agreement between an employer and employee. You can see how those limitations inhibit job creation.
I’ve NEVER said the poor are culpable of their own poverty. I’ve said we don’t get where we are without working hard, and you said the SAME. You said you “couldn’t NOT work hard if you tried.” Maybe YOU are saying the poor are that way because they don’t work hard, since it’s PART of the equation for being successful. I never said it was the whole of the equation, we merely disagreed about percentages.
I’m with Matt, privatize all public schools! ;) Private schools have better results with less cost per student. Through private schools, a black boy named Hussein might even get to be president!
I’d be happy go with Jewish-approved taxation . . . 10% on everyone!
Diana,
Based on that passage I’d stop at “…money isn’t yours.” It wasn’t all the government’s. Part of everyone’s income was supposed to be paid to the Temple as well.
Pulling Scripture only works on Christians. You know that, right? (Grin)
Dave
That was the point, Dave. Becky is a Christian. You know that, right? :)
Becky:
“Definition of Economics: a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
Taxes are not included in that definition. Taxes are external to the equation.”
No. Taxes are just the government’s way of charging rent for the right to live here–just like you pay your landlord for your little patch of grass somewhere. If you’re removing taxes from the equation, you’re making an artificial distinction. That is, it does not exist. If you do not take your rent into account, your budget is flawed.
And of COURSE you hate poor people. You’ve said so many times.
d
“You already agreed with me that the government shouldn’t interfere with a consensual agreement between an employer and employee.”
No. Something told me when I responded directly to your question that you would lift the part of my response that you wanted to hear out of context and ignore the rest. Now WHY would I expect you to do that, I wonder….
Feel free to repost here what I actually said on this point. It was a short post.
d
“I’ve NEVER said the poor are culpable of their own poverty.”
Yes, you have said that the poor are to blame for their own poverty. You believe you got where you are through your own efforts. That means you believe they are where they are because of a lack of their own efforts. You blame them for their poverty.
You can’t believe one without believing the other.
“I’ve said we don’t get where we are without working hard, and you said the SAME.”
Not exactly. No.
“You said you “couldn’t NOT work hard if you tried."”
Yes. And what was the context of that remark?
“Maybe YOU are saying the poor are that way because they don’t work hard, since it’s PART of the equation for being successful.”
You have completely missed the point. Again. Surprise, surprise.
Like I said, I can’t recall the last time you managed to understand any idea I’ve expressed–and when I say “understand,” I mean that you get what I MEAN by it, which usually coincides quite closely to how I have expressed it; what I don’t mean is how you have chosen to INTERPRET it to suit your view of “liberals.”
d
You act like the government is as pure as the driven snow. No waste? No corruption? Please explain how taxes = justifiable rent when it goes to subsidize the special interest groups who lobby congress for their “piece of the pie” whether it’s agribusiness, big oil or unions?
Is it justifiable for the government raise the rent for whatever reason they wish, so that the party in power can stay in power, or have more power? National defense is one of the smallest pieces of the pie, the entitlements make up about two thirds or more of the budget.
Here’s your post:
“If a worker WANTS to work for $1/hr, let him. I don’t think that’s the issue, though. That’s why I wanted to ask a question.”
The context of that remark about how you couldn’t NOT work hard . . .
Was that you were raised by people who taught you the value of hard work, who made you work hard, taught that you ARE responsible for your actions. Correct?
The percentage of your success that you attributed to your own hard work was 10%.
You did not, however, attribute a percentage to your parents’ TEACHING you that you are must be responsible and work hard. What percentage would you give to THAT? (Separate and apart from the percentage of WHERE you were born, and your health, etc.) What percentage to the teaching of the value of personal responsibility and effort?
You know…I think we’re making progress! No really!.
“If a worker WANTS to work for $1/hr, let him. I don’t think that’s the issue, though. That’s why I wanted to ask a question.”
GOOD! Now…what did I mean? Try your hand at this, and I’ll tell you whether you are understanding me or not.
And your next post, again: GOOD! :D I place my parents’ teachings within the 90% that was out of my control, which shaped me. I haven’t stopped to consider how much of that 90% I’d give to them. That’s an interesting question, though.
One more thing:
“Through private schools, a black boy named Hussein might even get to be president!”
You apparently see nothing offensive about a remark like this. I find this disappointing and disturbing.
d
YES! Our parents’ teachings that we are responsible for our success is a GREAT deal of the reason we are.
That “expectation” is the connection between the “ability” and the “proclivity.” Therefore . . . if we educate our kids, and fail to have “expectations” of them, we do them a disservice by not linking personal responsibility to their success.
By the same token, if we do not give those SAME expectations to those who were NOT raised as we were . . . we are doing THEM a disservice. We are failing them in an important part of HELPing them learn HOW to be successful. Teaching personal responsibility brings great pride to those who succeed after working hard, especially wen they learned that they CAN be successful and independent.
Tell me, when Michelle has a client who asks for rent money because they blew that month’s social security income gambling at Cripple Creek . . . are you saying they’re not “culpable” for being too poor that month?
When Silver Key looks at a client’s checking statement to determine where they spent their money unwisely . . . are they not trying to give them a clue as to how much of their “failure” is due to personal irresponsibility?
Well, this is truly exciting. We’re definitely making progress!
“That “expectation” is the connection between the “ability” and the “proclivity.” Therefore . . . if we educate our kids, and fail to have “expectations” of them, we do them a disservice by not linking personal responsibility to their success.
By the same token, if we do not give those SAME expectations to those who were NOT raised as we were . . . we are doing THEM a disservice. We are failing them in an important part of HELPing them learn HOW to be successful. Teaching personal responsibility brings great pride to those who succeed after working hard, especially wen they learned that they CAN be successful and independent.”
The flaw I see in your reasoning is that the expectations of our families are powerful indeed, whereas the expectations of those who are outside our circles are simply those people’s pipe dreams.
I’m doing them a disservice if I do not try to get others to believe in themselves. Only when I’ve made progress on that front do my expectations of them make any difference. You must be taught self-sufficiency before anyone’s expectation that you be self-sufficient–which is a step long before success–will make a bit of difference.
You see what I mean?
d
Yes, I see what you mean, but I do not (totally) agree. I do not agree that “expectations of those who are outside our circles” equate to “pipe dreams.”
One can feel the need to make a living with or without the “expectations of others.” However, if people can get money from the government . . . will they ever “feel the need” to work as hard as possible? (Like we “can’t help but do?") (Or “feel the need” to save for retirement, if Social Security is there.)
If they can get money from Silver Key for rent, will they stop gambling? If they don’t stop gambling, should Silver Key keep giving them money?
This balance of work/reward applies to every endeavor, whether it’s work or play. We all make decisions based on the effort it takes, and ALL of us try to get the most for the least. That’s why we go to sales. That’s why people gamble. That’s why unions lobby for huge retirements. If a union worker can invest only $100,000 in his retirement account, but draw $3,000,000 (a real example) . . . why wouldn’t he want to do that? But what city/state/government can afford those kind of promises to all of their workers? (See what’s happening in Greece.)
Do you see where I’m going with this? People are not stupid, they get as much as they can for their money/effort. If you make something “easy” to get, then you will be giving more of it away.
While it’s human nature to try to get the most for the least, remember “for every action, there’s an equal-and-opposite reaction.” If people think it’s NOT worth it to work hard, that they are not getting their effort’s worth, or it gets taken away from them when they do . . . then they will STOP working!
We’ve both acknowledged that. Figuring out the tipping point/sweet spot is the difficulty. But, as you know with entitlements . . . “when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have the support of Paul” . . . unless you try to take it away from Paul, and then you have Greece fires in the streets.
I don’t want low taxes because I “love the rich” or “hate the poor” . . . I want just the right amount of taxes to stimulate businesses and keep the economy humming to pay for NEEDS (not “wants."). I didn’t say lowER taxes, I just don’t want them going too high because it backfires.
Growing government gives it too much power, and then the beast wants to feed itself even more. Like you said, it has the power to take what it wants, do YOU want it to take MORE?. Oh wait, you already answered that question. You do.
:(
Whew! I’ve turned in my last paper (YES!), gotten home through 2.5 hours of Boulder/Denver/Monument rush hour traffic, said hello to all the critters, and I have a glass of wine. I now have time to think and respond…thoughtfully, I hope.
We may be at a point where we can HEAR what one another is saying. I’m all a-tingle. :)
So, I hope you don’t mind my responding again to your points line by line.
“Yes, I see what you mean, but I do not (totally) agree. I do not agree that “expectations of those who are outside our circles” equate to “pipe dreams.”
One can feel the need to make a living with or without the “expectations of others."”
I wish you were right. I would love to believe that. I really would. However, where do get get the strong individualism required to “feel that need” if you’ve had no model and the expectations of your influencing circle have not instilled them in you?
“However, if people can get money from the government . . . will they ever “feel the need” to work as hard as possible?”
I think the answer is yes, honestly.
Why do you believe that people who are getting their monthly pittance from the government aren’t motivated to do more? I’m GUESSING it’s because people on welfare tend to stay on welfare for years. If it’s something along these lines, I ask that you consider any other reasons they may not be able to get off welfare.
“If they can get money from Silver Key for rent, will they stop gambling? If they don’t stop gambling, should Silver Key keep giving them money?”
Unless you can demonstrate that the average welfare recipient squanders his $200/mo (or whatever it is for any given state), this comment is off-topic.
“This balance of work/reward applies to every endeavor, whether it’s work or play. We all make decisions based on the effort it takes, and ALL of us try to get the most for the least. That’s why we go to sales. That’s why people gamble. That’s why unions lobby for huge retirements. If a union worker can invest only $100,000 in his retirement account, but draw $3,000,000 (a real example) . . . why wouldn’t he want to do that? But what city/state/government can afford those kind of promises to all of their workers? (See what’s happening in Greece.)”
First, I understand your point to be that we all try to get the most we can for the least personal investment. If I am correct in how I understand you, I disagree. I believe there is a lower limit on most people’s desire to get one over on WHOMEVER they feel they’re getting one over on (can we get a preposition count, please?).
I think we want a deal, yes. However, getting something for nothing does not lead to happiness, and people seem to intrinsically know this.
Anyway…since I assume we’re discussing welfare here, I’d point out that living with your mother and doing nothing for not enough money for diapers and groceries clearly has a point of diminishing returns.
“Do you see where I’m going with this? People are not stupid, they get as much as they can for their money/effort. If you make something “easy” to get, then you will be giving more of it away.”
I agree. I don’t want it easier to get. I would prefer that we learn from our mistakes–the people who scam the system–and find a cost-effective way to reduce the scammers.
“Figuring out the tipping point/sweet spot is the difficulty.”
I agree. (As a matter of fact, I can’t decide whether I should be annoyed or amused that you argue (with me) that if the system goes too far, it will collapse–since I’ve never said otherwise, and even pointed this out myself a couple of times. This is just another example of you arguing with what you think liberals believe while you apparently ignore the hell out of what I’m saying.)
“But, as you know with entitlements . . . “when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have the support of Paul"”
I don’t understand how welfare is an “entitlement,” I guess. We probably have different understandings of the term.
“I don’t want low taxes because I “love the rich” or “hate the poor"”
Thanks for that. Now. Can you acknowledge that liberals don’t want progressive taxes because they “hate the rich"?
CAN you? If the answer is yes, please do so, unequivocally.
If the answer is no, then I suspect we haven’t really made progress at all.
” . . . I want just the right amount of taxes to stimulate businesses and keep the economy humming to pay for NEEDS (not “wants.").”
So do liberals. I said this several weeks ago, in one of my first “what i believe” blog posts: we just have a different idea of what qualifies as “needs” and “wants.” None of us wants to run the government out of business. None of us, as far as I know, hates the rich or hates the poor.
So…STOP using such inane and pointedly divisive rhetoric. I really don’t give a flip whether you hear The Great God Rush SAY this 20 times a day. It isn’t true. It isn’t true (as far as I know) that conservatives “hate the poor” any more than it is that liberals “hate the rich.” So stop it. Just STOP IT.
“I didn’t say lowER taxes, I just don’t want them going too high because it backfires.”
Good. We agree again.
“Growing government gives it too much power, and then the beast wants to feed itself even more.”
Well, I agree that growing government gives it MORE power. Sometimes, it doesn’t have enough, so it’s hard to say categorically that just because it’s growing somewhere, it has TOO MUCH.
Consider this, though: economics has a way of balancing things out. If the money the government has to spend (what it takes from its citizens) is squandered, it will PAY–like any business.
“Like you said, it has the power to take what it wants, do YOU want it to take MORE?. Oh wait, you already answered that question. You do.”
At this point, it needs to take more. But I would not categorically make such a statement. As I’ve said many times before–and surely this has to be penetrating your shell by now–my judgments depend upon the specific situation.
Now. Please answer this question:
I said: “If a worker WANTS to work for $1/hr, let him. I don’t think that’s the issue, though. That’s why I wanted to ask a question.”
What do you think I meant by that? Apply the principle of charity and see what bubbles to the surface.
d
words words words
I’m just glad that Becky agrees with me that programs like Medicare are destroying America and that freeloaders who use Medicare need to pay their own damn bills!!!
Ah yes, but then who are the freeloaders in a country where everyone is on medicare and all healthcare is distributed evenly?
What happens when the cost of said universal medical care is less than the per person costs of the current user-pay system in the US?
What is the difference between having a variety of HMOs and one big one paid by our taxes? One difference is a big saving in overall cost. A middle class Canadian has more disposable income than the same person in the States and the main reason, despite higher taxation rates North of the 49th parallel, is the low cost of quality medical care. Please don’t believe the scare stories about Canadian medical care. We have experienced care on both sides of the border. All Canadians have the option of driving down to the States for medical care. Few do.
L.
Let’s discuss government’s power to extract “rent” to “provide services.” If the government can enact policies “because it can,” how about listening in to private phone conversations if they suspect that one is a terrorist? The government controls communication through the FCC (we don’t OWN our telephone service, we rent :). We all have a vested interest in security, so if the government “needs” to monitor phone calls, and it has the power to . . . would you object? If you don’t like it, you know you can go to another country. But if you like this country and all of it’s benefits (such as security), well, it’s just “the price you pay.”
By the same token, you’ve said several times that you’d like a single-payer health system, and that means total government control of all health care. I suppose it’s fine with you for the government to require everyone’s entire health records be turned over to the government . . . all abortions, STDs, addictions, mental health issues, genetic predispositions . . . the government gets it ALL so they can “digitalize” all the records in order to lower costs. If you object, too bad, it’s the price you pay for single payer. It’s illegal to pay for your own health care in Canada. Cities near the Canadian border have an abundance of hospitals and clinics advertising “We take Canadian dollars.” They lost the freedom to buy their own care even if they want to . . . but hey, it’s the price they pay for single-payer. If they want go OUT of Canada and come to the US for health care . .. they can. Well, they used to be able to.
What’s the problem losing a little freedom, or privacy, or having unlimited taxation, to grow the government so we can have more security or “social justice.”
What happened to our nation’s important value of FREEDOM?
Lorraine, why would ANYONE need to drive down to the states for medical care? If it’s “free” in Canada . . . and high quality . . . and no rationing . . .why?
If the US gets universal health care, where will the Canadians go for their “options?”
Matt,
If there were no such thing as Medicare, people would buy their own insurance, form their own non-profits and co-ops. And it would be generally be LESS expensive because it would eliminate the biggest middle-man of all, the government . . . as well as the huge expenses of fraud, waste and abuse.
The “insurance company” that denies the MOST claims, both in raw numbers and in percentages . . . is your beloved government program, Medicare.
Why are Democrats starting 14 different new kinds of taxes, including a national sales tax . . . if “health care reform” is going to bring health care costs DOWN?
In Massachusetts, a test-bed of Obamacare . . . why did the insurance companies want to stop selling new policies? Because the government forced them to take all-comers, with pre-existing conditions, and NOT raise rates. People bought policies, got expensive medical care and then dropped them. And the insurance companies in Mass are NON-PROFIT.
Becky:
Can you acknowledge that liberals don’t want progressive taxes because they “hate the rich"?
CAN you? If the answer is yes, please do so, unequivocally.
ALSO:
I said: “If a worker WANTS to work for $1/hr, let him. I don’t think that’s the issue, though. That’s why I wanted to ask a question.”
What do you think I meant by that? Apply the principle of charity and see what bubbles to the surface.
(Now I’ll respond to your thoughtful post, but please answer these questions.)
d
“Let’s discuss government’s power to extract “rent” to “provide services.” If the government can enact policies “because it can,” how about listening in to private phone conversations if they suspect that one is a terrorist? The government controls communication through the FCC (we don’t OWN our telephone service, we rent . We all have a vested interest in security, so if the government “needs” to monitor phone calls, and it has the power to . . . would you object? If you don’t like it, you know you can go to another country. But if you like this country and all of it’s benefits (such as security), well, it’s just “the price you pay."”
You don’t seem to realize that you’re making my point for me, including examples that I don’t have the time to root out, so i suppose I should thank you.
Thanks! :)
Apparently, the answer is that the government DOES have the right to do that, since THEY DO IT. Until We The People change that, they will continue to have such a right.
I don’t like the fact that our government has decided that it’s okay to violate our freedom of privacy because they want to get the drop on terrorists (presumably, and I prefer to believe that this is all they use these “rights” for, although the cynic in me says I’m deluding myself. My choices seem to be to bitch about it and go on, or to move. So far–and once again, please note how your example makes my point for me–the freedoms and protections I’d lose for what is a very VERY low “rent” are not worth what I’d stand to gain by going elsewhere.
See? Cost-benefit analysis. With your intense and abiding focus on economics, surely you can appreciate that. (And that has been my point all along.)
“By the same token, you’ve said several times that you’d like a single-payer health system, and that means total government control of all health care. I suppose it’s fine with you for the government to require everyone’s entire health records be turned over to the government . . . all abortions, STDs, addictions, mental health issues, genetic predispositions . . . the government gets it ALL so they can “digitalize” all the records in order to lower costs. If you object, too bad, it’s the price you pay for single payer.”
Yup. You’re, of course, asking a career military officer how she feels about the government having everything there is to know about her on file. Don’t become a lawyer. ;)
“It’s illegal to pay for your own health care in Canada. Cities near the Canadian border have an abundance of hospitals and clinics advertising “We take Canadian dollars.” They lost the freedom to buy their own care even if they want to . . . but hey, it’s the price they pay for single-payer. If they want go OUT of Canada and come to the US for health care . .. they can. Well, they used to be able to.”
I’ll let one of my Canadian friends respond to this, because frankly, I don’t know.
“What’s the problem losing a little freedom, or privacy, or having unlimited taxation, to grow the government so we can have more security or “social justice."”
I’m not sure where you’re getting the “unlimited taxation” thing, unless you’re “paraphrasing” again.
By the way, Becky…to paraphrase is to restate someone’s sentiments in your own words. If you distort or attribute motivation to the speaker, you are no longer paraphrasing. You are inferring. Just a friendly reminder from your favorite English teacher. ;)
“What happened to our nation’s important value of FREEDOM?”
Now THIS is a great question! Are you against the Patriot Act? For gay marriage? Legalization of pot? TALK to me!
d
I tried to read through all of this and then realized… I can’t.
I think you’re misrepresenting anarchy, ma’am, in your initial post. >:( anarchy is not automatically crime and crazies, ok? it’s just grassroots gov’t. at least in theory.
and I hate big business btw. Let’s say big business is Microsoft. Macintosh is the product of Swedish-style taxation and gov’t. Linux is anarchy. What works the best? ;)
Well, there do seem to be some misconceptions about how our system works in Canada. I also don’t feel heard (or is it “read” when it’s in print?). When I said few Canadians avail themselves of the US health care system, I meant it. We are satisfied with our system.
The issue to us is not that we are not allowed to pay for health care (which we can do in some cases) but that doctors and hospitals are not allowed to charge for health care as long as the patient has a medicare card from any province in Canada. It means that our docs and medical residents don’t spent 60% of their time finding funding for underfunded patients like they do in the US. They spend their time practising medicine.
My experience with the American health care system is through relatives who live down there and through my sister who became deathly ill while on vacation in the States and wouldn’t have survived for the trip back to Canada. I’ve also been to ERs in the US while on holiday as have many Canadians who fall ill or have an accident down there. While the quality of care in the US is as high as it is here, the costs are mind-boggling.
I think it is very hard to criticize what you don’t understand and from your comments, you don’t understand how our, and most of the developed world’s, universal coverage works.
With health care and so many other things, Americans are often at such a disadvantage because, while in addition to all of our own and some European ones we get all your major TV networks and some of the minor ones too and while we travel to the States quite often, the vast majority of your TV is only from within the US, most of your news is only American and even most weather charts stop at the 49th parallel, as if we don’t exist.
We learn Asian, European, English, Canadian and American history in school here. We know that the 49th parallel isn’t the longest undefended border in the world because we defended ourselves so well when the US attacked out of the blue during the other war of 1812 that it necessitated the rebuild on the White House. (Example: Do you know what our head of government is called? Do you know his or her name? Do you know what their residence is called?) QED.
To critise what you don’t understand gives others such a bad impression of you and often exposes a lack of knowledge.
Fear mongering is the last resort of the desperate.
L.
Now THIS is a great question! Are you against the Patriot Act? For gay marriage? Legalization of pot? TALK to me!
–I can answer that, Becky values FREEDOM so it’s against, for, and yes. Obviously.
“The “insurance company” that denies the MOST claims, both in raw numbers and in percentages . . . is your beloved government program, Medicare.”
—I’m in favor of doing away completely with Medicare. Are you?
| « this is your brain | wow » |
Who are the "rightful owners" of the nation's wealth? If someone currently has wealth by working and saving his or her whole life, why is he/her not the rightful owner of it?