# A 7 Point Conservative Strategy for Democrats...



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Got your attention didn't I?

Okay so the bad guys won...but no biggie...silver lining is that a lot of fake Republicans got flushed out of the system of power. In my humble opinion this election was more of an indication of the power of the conservative trends in this country...

So how might these people stick around and be invited to the White House in 2008. I've got some ideas:

1. Make the tax cuts permanent. It's great economic policy and if you don't manage it then Republicans will say "there ya go again-tax and spend!" and waltz in 2008.

2. Make national security the highest priority. We may have honest disagreements on Iraq but gutting intelligence gathering over silly and rather inconsequential "privacy concerns" is handing Bin Laden a victory.

3. Reform Social Security. This is a silent but deadly train wreck happening in slow motion. Get ahead of this and become a party with some ideas for a change.

4. Cool the arrogance. Go ahead and be proud of the accomplishment but reading in any mandate and letting things go to your head and the Democrats will be swept out of office for many years.

5. Kill some stupid government programs. If we learned anything from Tuesday or the last six years its that big government is totally dead.

6. Stop the class warfare. In this economy most Americans know making $100K is just enough to support a family. No one making this thinks they are "rich" and raising their taxes looks unfair and doesn't really raise money for the treasury. The rich are soaked already.

7. Let people send their kids to the schools of their choice. How more democratic and free can you get. In every city it has been implemented, the scores go up and the public schools get better! This area is especially popular among inner city minorities. We can't all go to Sidwell Friends but let's level the playing field some-these youngsters are the future.

Well that's my two cents. Sometimes you get what you pay for.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

A long time ago, a terrific sports columnist named Mark Whicker wrote a tongue-in-cheek column in The Orange County Register during the World Cup: How to make soccer more palatable to Americans. He proposed a series of rules changes, must have been 20 or 30 of them. Allow cheerleaders. Let the players use their hands. Let them knock each other over. And finally, use a ball pointed at both ends.

Soccer fans, of course, howled in protest. The paper's ombudsman was deluged by their calls. Obviously soccer fans have no sense of humor.

Your post reminds me of that column, only instead of suggesting we turn soccer into American football, you want to change Democrats into Republicans. What a brilliant piece of humor writing by you!


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> A long time ago, a terrific sports columnist named Mark Whicker wrote a tongue-in-cheek column in The Orange County Register during the World Cup: How to make soccer more palatable to Americans. He proposed a series of rules changes, must have been 20 or 30 of them. Allow cheerleaders. Let the players use their hands. Let them knock each other over. And finally, use a ball pointed at both ends.
> 
> Soccer fans, of course, howled in protest. The paper's ombudsman was deluged by their calls. Obviously soccer fans have no sense of humor.
> 
> Your post reminds me of that column, only instead of suggesting we turn soccer into American football, you want to change Democrats into Republicans. What a brilliant piece of humor writing by you!


Explain for me, please, which of those are bad ideas. More importantly, explain why.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> Explain for me, please, which of those are bad ideas. More importantly, explain why.


Oh come on, that would take a book. But in brief, I do not think privacy concerns are silly or inconsequential, I do not think the truly wealthy (not $100K, but really rich) are being soaked, I think we need to reduce the deficit and likely need to eliminate the tax cuts to do it, and I disagree completely on the school-voucher thing. If you want your kid in a private school, you can apply for a scholarship the way I did to go to prep school, and if you make too much money to qualify, tough luck, pay the tuition, as you should.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> Oh come on, that would take a book. But in brief, I do not think privacy concerns are silly or inconsequential, I do not think the truly wealthy (not $100K, but really rich) are being soaked, I think we need to reduce the deficit and likely need to eliminate the tax cuts to do it, and I disagree completely on the school-voucher thing. If you want your kid in a private school, you can apply for a scholarship the way I did to go to prep school, and if you make too much money to qualify, tough luck, pay the tuition, as you should.


It's nice to know that you can repeat Democratic talking points, but what is less clear is if you can actually defend any positions. The reason I support lower taxes for the wealthy is not because I don't believe they can't afford it or don't deserve to pay their share, rather I believe that money in their hands is much more likely to be put to productive use and benefit "the economy" than in the hands of the government or other citizens after redistribution.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Your opening comment " The bad guys won" has more in commonality with a Sunni blowing up a Shi'ite mosque than american political debate. Changing political fortunes are no different or uncertain than the tide. One wave comes in, cleans up parts of the beach and leaves it's own flotsum and jetsum for the next wave. Both claim great fundamental differences and periodically warn of Red tides and green algae blooms. You've got to learn to tread water, wear substantial seaboots and not flip flops and remember that with care the beach will still be there even after major storms and tidal surges.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Artisan Fan, you have offered as cogent and susccint a statement of what our national priorities should be, as I have recently seen. With all sincerity I must ask, have you ever considered running for office...you certainly have a clearer vision than much of our national leadership (including most members of Congress)? BTW, I am a Republican.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Okay, setting aside the ridiculous substance of your post, why would it be in the interests of the Democrats to embrace the policy positions of the rejected Republicans?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*We Are Doomed*

You people friggin' amaze me. Could someone from the Dem camp please explain to me precisely, no talking points bullshyte, how these points are bad?

1) End class warfare
2) Do not be arrogant
3) Do not let SS go bankrupt
4) Eliminate unwarranted and ill-advised government spending.

That is four out of the OPs seven points. Are you guys telling me you are *for* class warfare, arrogance, SS going bankrupt, and wasteful government spending? I mean, look at your replies:



crs said:


> What a brilliant piece of humor writing by you!





jackmccullough said:


> Okay, setting aside *the ridiculous substance of your post,* why would it be in the interests of the Democrats to embrace the policy positions....


Again, you people simply amaze me. So much for finding commonality and having some common sense. I implore you, please explain to me precisely why the four out of seven points I listed are humourous and ridiculous.

Regards


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Okay so the bad guys won...but no biggie...silver lining is that a lot of fake Republicans got flushed out of the system of power. In my humble opinion this election was more of an indication of the power of the conservative trends in this country...


Come now. Do you really think that an historic defeat of Conservatives in the congress and in state-level races (governors, &c) indicates a national trend toward conservatism? Is this satire, pray tell?



> So how might these people stick around and be invited to the White House in 2008. I've got some ideas:


Why would Superman take Lex Luthor's advice?



> 1. Make the tax cuts permanent. It's great economic policy.


Why? Why on Earth?



> 2. Make national security the highest priority. We may have honest disagreements on Iraq but gutting intelligence gathering over silly and rather inconsequential "privacy concerns" is handing Bin Laden a victory.


As CRS said, privacy concerns are not 'rather inconsequential' - at least, that is, if one is not a crypto-fascist or some such ideologue (which surely you aren't). Also, national security is silly as a top priority if the nation in question is imploding with record deficits, stratospheric debt in the hands of a potential enemy, record levels of people without healthcare, a large illegal immigrant population, a failing educational system, and unprecedented loss of credibility abroad due to broken treaties and recreational wars of aggression.



> 3. Reform Social Security. This is a silent but deadly train wreck happening in slow motion. Get ahead of this and become a party with some ideas for a change.


Reform in what sense? Abolish it? I am sceptical of any advice a conservative offers about the perpetuation of liberal programmes.



> 4. Cool the arrogance. Go ahead and be proud of the accomplishment but reading in any mandate and letting things go to your head and the Democrats will be swept out of office for many years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrogance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Right



> 5. Kill some stupid government programs. If we learned anything from Tuesday or the last six years its that big government is totally dead.


Of what, pray tell, would 'small government' consist, in a county as big as the US?



> 6. Stop the class warfare. In this economy most Americans know making $100K is just enough to support a family. No one making this thinks they are "rich" and raising their taxes looks unfair and doesn't really raise money for the treasury. The rich are soaked already.


The rich are soaked? Ha!



> 7. Let people send their kids to the schools of their choice. How more democratic and free can you get. In every city it has been implemented, the scores go up and the public schools get better! This area is especially popular among inner city minorities. We can't all go to Sidwell Friends but let's level the playing field some-these youngsters are the future.


According to the National Centre for Education Statistics (US), there were 48.5 million students in public schools vs 6.4 million in all types of private schools combined. What do you think would happen to the quality of private education once it was dramatically diluted with low-performing public school students?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I posted too quickly. Thanks for adding into the conversation JLP. I can always count on a vegan liberal monarchist like you to add some sense to a crazy thread. LOL, I kill myself sometimes.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think the quality of private education would diminish somewhat if they could not pick and choose their students.

However, Private Schools are not subject to the whims of the teacher's union and can concentrate on educating students and enforcing standards, which public schools are unwilling and/or unable to do for various reasons. Also, parents of students in private schools are (because they have made the effort to place the kids there) more inclined to be involved in the children's education and more inclined to back the teachers' attempts to enforce discipline and standards.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I wonder what spending the Democrats will actually cut? They complain about the budget but I haven't heard any specific programs they would cut. All I hear is that they they will raise taxes (though in their Orwellian parlance they call it rolling back the Bush tax breaks, as if natural law dictates that the true tax rates were the Clinton era ones.)

I tend to think the Democrats won bc many people were fed up with GOP corruption (and rightfully so) and many conservatives felt that Congress and the Bush administration had betrayed conservative principles of small government and fiscal responsibility. In many ways Bush is more a traditional Christian Democrat or Christian Socialist of the old European order (back when Europe was nominally Christian.) All of the conservatives I know, including myself (though I count myself as more of a classical liberal), felt the GOP deserved its thrashing and look forward to some fresh leadership and a return to our core values. Funny I don't remember any Democratic introspection when they lost Congress in 1994 and, with the exception of a few new conservative Dems elected this cycle, I can't say the party has changed much since then. It is possible that the election of Bush in 2000 has pushed the Democrats even further to left.

The 2008 election will tell if this is merely a protest or an impending Democratic wave. I'd like to think that the next Congress can't be any worse than the outgoing Congress but I dare not underestimate the Democrats! However they have a wide margin of error before they begin to resemble the outgoing Congress, let alone surpass it in incompetence.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> It's nice to know that you can repeat Democratic talking points, but what is less clear is if you can actually defend any positions. The reason I support lower taxes for the wealthy is not because I don't believe they can't afford it or don't deserve to pay their share, rather I believe that money in their hands is much more likely to be put to productive use and benefit "the economy" than in the hands of the government or other citizens after redistribution.


I see. When someone disagrees with you, they are repeating talking points (like a machine). It is only the conservatives who actually think for themselves. Of course it is mere coincidence that many (not all) conservatives merely recite, like automatons, what can be heard on conservative talk radio (yes, I listen). Lose the arrogance? Look, there is plenty on both sides, but some of the conservatives on this forum seem to have arrogance in much greater abundance.

So you want me to take the time and effort to defend my views in depth? As if it were impossible such views could be defended? That's rather pompous. I'll tell you what -- you can write your book-length defense of your views first and then maybe I'll respond if I have time. I'm not going to spend an hour on it just because it is beyond your comprehension that educated, well-meaning people can disagree about such issues, with each side having merit. So you're a student at Hopkins? Well, Student, if you believe issues are black-and-white and that the only answers are to be found on the conservative side, then you need to spend many more years in school.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> I see. When someone disagrees with you, they are repeating talking points (like a machine). It is only the conservatives who actually think for themselves. Of course it is mere coincidence that many (not all) conservatives merely recite, like automatons, what can be heard on conservative talk radio (yes, I listen). Lose the arrogance? Look, there is plenty on both sides, but some of the conservatives on this forum seem to have arrogance in much greater abundance.
> 
> So you want me to take the time and effort to defend my views in depth? As if it were impossible such views could be defended? That's rather pompous. I'll tell you what -- you can write your book-length defense of your views first and then maybe I'll respond if I have time. I'm not going to spend an hour on it just because it is beyond your comprehension that educated, well-meaning people can disagree about such issues, with each side having merit. So you're a student at Hopkins? *Well, Student, if you believe issues are black-and-white and that the only answers are to be found on the conservative side, then you need to spend many more years in school.*


No arrogance displayed in your response. And for the record, I was a student at JHU, but I no longer am. And you seem to hold the opposite belief with great fervor, that the only answer is to be found on the liberal side. Perhaps you should take your own advice and go back to school.

In all honesty, I believe people that are drawn to the Democratic party are much more likely to think about problems than solutions. They typically know what the Democratic party idea for the solution is, but they are usually incapable of defending it without turning to class warfare on economic issues and oppression by white, straight males of minorities, homosexuals, and women on social issues.
This focus on problems rather than solutions results in generally taking the easy way out when asked to come up with a solution. Someone doesn't have something, how are we going to solve this problem? D: Give it to them. R: Create an environment where they can provide it for themselves indefinitely. There is infinitely greater complexity in finding a way to help someone provide for themselves than giving them what they don't have.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Stop your hissy fit. And I would be careful about calling anyone arrogant lest you presume to be holier than thou. As you have written well meaning people can disagree. I don't question your motives (though I do question your bias) and shouldn't question those of hopkins_student. And I hate to break it you but sometimes the issues are black and white, though I realize that such a notion may constitute blasphemy for you. I think it was Shaw who said all great truths begin as blaspemies. Just remember to keep an open mind yourself.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> In all honesty, I believe people that are drawn to the Democratic party are much more likely to think about problems than solutions. They typically know what the Democratic party idea for the solution is, but they are usually incapable of defending it without turning to class warfare on economic issues and oppression by white, straight males of minorities, homosexuals, and women on social issues.
> This focus on problems rather than solutions results in generally taking the easy way out when asked to come up with a solution. Someone doesn't have something, how are we going to solve this problem? D: Give it to them. R: Create an environment where they can provide it for themselves indefinitely. There is infinitely greater complexity in finding a way to help someone provide for themselves than giving them what they don't have.


Yes, generalizing is so intellectually honest.

Stop sulking. The voters voted, the results are in. I happen to be skeptical about both parties. I just think it's absurd that having lost both the House and the Senate, some conservatives now think if they whine enough, they can turn Democrats into conservatives and thus have it their way despite the wishes of the voters. It's true that the liberals tried the same thing in 2000 -- but then Bush had campaigned on that "a uniter, not a divider" line, and they were trying to hold him to it (unsuccessfully). Anyway, ain't gonna happen. Didn't happen in 2000, won't happen now, won't happen in 2626, either. Get over it, it's a pipe dream.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> Yes, generalizing is so intellectually honest.
> 
> Stop sulking. The voters voted, the results are in. I happen to be skeptical about both parties. I just think it's absurd that having lost both the House and the Senate, some conservatives now think if they whine enough, they can turn Democrats into conservatives and thus have it their way despite the wishes of the voters. It's true that the liberals tried the same thing in 2000 -- but then Bush had campaigned on that "a uniter, not a divider" line, and they were trying to hold him to it (unsuccessfully). Anyway, ain't gonna happen. Didn't happen in 2000, won't happen now, won't happen in 2626, either. Get over it, it's a pipe dream.


No whining here. I'm glad it happened this year rather than 2008, it gives us time to repackage our message. And a generalization is only intellectually dishonest when it isn't presented as a generalization. Not all Democrats are the way I described, just all that I know and read about, hence the use of the words and phrases like "usually" and "more likely."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> You people friggin' amaze me. Could someone from the Dem camp please explain to me precisely, no talking points bullshyte, how these points are bad?
> 
> 1) End class warfare
> 2) Do not be arrogant
> ...


1.) I do not accept that what I would consider a fair tax system is "class warfare." I believe the phrase is nonsense.

2.) Do not be arrogant, fine. I'd like for the Dems not to be arrogant. But neither have I seen any signs of humility from conservatives, even since Tuesday.

3.) Yes. However, we likely would disagree about how to save it.

4.) Again, I take it we would disagree on what's unwarranted and ill-advised.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> 1.) I do not accept that what I would consider a fair tax system is "class warfare." I believe the phrase is nonsense.


Please describe your "fair tax system". What would you choose for brackets and what would be the marginal rate for each bracket? Also, please explain why you chose the numbers that you chose and how they increase fairness.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> What would you choose for brackets and what would be the marginal rate for each bracket? Also, please explain why you chose the numbers that you chose and how they increase fairness.


You want me to rewrite the tax code here? Something that takes pages and pages in the _booklets_ the IRS gives us. I don't see you or the original poster being that specific. You have lost your mind, and in that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that at some previous point in your life, you were sane.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Undoubtedly in your quest for tax justice you support a national sales tax to replace the income tax, no? Are you in a tax bracket that received a cut from Presiden Bush, and if so did you do your part in not accepting that cut? Perhaps we should even do away with tax deductions, after all such a step would be enable the federal government to spend even more - and who doesn't love government spending?

Karl


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> You want me to rewrite the tax code here? Something that takes pages and pages in the _booklets_ the IRS gives us. I don't see you or the original poster being that specific. You have lost your mind, and in that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that at some previous point in your life, you were sane.


The tone of your posts indicates that you are a hate-filled little man. I'm sure I'm not the only one that shares that opinion. And no, I was not asking you to re-write the tax code, a summary or approximation would suffice. What is inherently unfair about a system in which the wealthiest pay 35% of each additional dollar while the poorest workers actually receive money from the earned income tax credit. It actually sounds better than fair to most reasonable middle class people.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Undoubtedly in your quest for tax justice you support a national sales tax to replace the income tax, no?


Absolutely not. That hurts poor people disproportionately to their income.



Karl89 said:


> Are you in a tax bracket that received a cut from Presiden Bush, and if so did you do your part in not accepting that cut?


I was not aware that refusing the cut was an option. My impression was that we had to use the rates given to us by the IRS. Is this not true? We can make up our own rates?

But obviously, since I've said that probably the tax cuts need to be taken away, I am willing to sacrifice.



Karl89 said:


> Perhaps we should even do away with tax deductions, after all such a step would be enable the federal government to spend even more - and who doesn't love government spending?


They could apply it to the deficit rather than increase spending.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> The tone of your posts indicates that you are a hate-filled little man. I'm sure I'm not the only one that shares that opinion. And no, I was not asking you to re-write the tax code, a summary or approximation would suffice. What is inherently unfair about a system in which the wealthiest pay 35% of each additional dollar while the poorest workers actually receive money from the earned income tax credit. It actually sounds better than fair to most reasonable middle class people.


Why don't we ignore each other then? You think I'm a "hate-filled little man" and I think you're not only a kook, but a greedy one who hates poor people. We really have nothing to offer each other.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> And no, I was not asking you to re-write the tax code, a summary or approximation would suffice.


For example, your's might look something like this:
Income: MTR: Justification
$0-$20000: -50%: They are clearly being abused by the wealthy.
$20001-$35000: -25%: They have been abused by the wealthy but have been lucky enough to hide enough money that they can lead almost appropriately funded lives.
$35000-$50000: 0%: These people have the perfect income and it is immoral to make any more or less.
$50001-$100000: 50%: For some it will reduce their income below "the perfect income," but that's what they deserve for taking advantage of the poor.
$100001+: 100% + lifetime enslavement by the bottom bracket: These people are so despicable they're lucky we're letting them live.

Just to give you some sort of idea of what I was looking for.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

You can make a donation to the federal government, to I believe its called the general fund. Why don't you make the sacrifice now and pay more taxes and I am sure that inspired by your selfless example others would follow.

How about we shrink the size of the federal government 10% over the next five years (and a real decrease not just a decrease in spending increases.) If that doesn't balance the budget I will gladly have my taxes raised. 

Admit it, you don't want to see less government, you want to see more of it. Doesn't make you a bad person though it does make you incorrect!

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Why would you think I want a larger federal government? Because it is less "taxing" on your brain to believe that's what everyone who doesn't identify himself as a "conservative" wants? Well, you're wrong. In fact, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who says there ought to be more federal employees, except perhaps federal employees. But this is one of those conservative "talking points," right?


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Okay so the bad guys won...


Indeed, in our neck of the woods the bad guys won with alarming frequency. The rest of the nation seemed to put its foot in the door of the 21st century, while Georgia decided it was more comfortable living in the world of the 19th century.

I guess Sonny vs. Mark was a 6/half-dozen issue. Must as I detest Sonny, I find it too hard to get exercised at the whupping the big guy suffered. Only the most partisan democrats really found something to like in his campaign.

Most notably, the despicable Casey Kagle defeated probably the only decent man running for statewide office in Georgia this year, Jim Martin, for Lt. Gov.

Gallingly, thanks to partisan redistricting the General Assembly lost its finest senator, Jane Kidd. Jane was replaced by some douchebag whose bro-in-law was in charge of the redistricting that put him into office. Despite the formidable odds engineered against her, Jane did manage to get about 10 points better than the composition of her district would've suggested. I have a few students who worked on her campaign this semester, and I'm proud of 'em.

But to address your seven points, only a raving lunatic would follow that kind of rigid ideological garbage. (And as long as Republicans put their rotten ideology over pragmatic solutions that use every avenue available to us to solve our problems, they will remain in the wilderness.) These six years have only shown that government does not work when incompetent schmucks who are have an ideological/religious commitment to proving that government can't do anything and lack the patriotism to transcend their petty ideology in the name of the country they supposedly love are running it. Thankfully, we have some better people in government now than we have over the past decade plus. One would hope they can begin to undo the damage caused by Republican incompetence, such as a more civilized seven point plan:

1) Ending the expensive, inefficient, and predatory sick care system in America by moving towards a civilized and modern health care system, which is to say a universal one. A necessarily component of this reform would be to completely revamp the nonsensical big pharma subsidy package that was sold to the public as a prescription drug benefit for seniors. The best result on the health care modernization front for the Dems would be, I think, for them to propose something really good, let Republicans fillibuster or veto it, and then let Obama/Clark - hey, one can dream, can't he? - cruise to victory in 08 by running on it. Get two good results out of one necessary action.

2) End the nasty and vicious class warfare (the _real_ class warfare in this country, not the bogeyman trotted out by the intellectually dishonest right) of the outgoing clique by eliminating the Bush tax shifts. At the same time and with the same action, begin the process of ceasing fire in the intergenerational warfare between reckless old fatcats and America's future who will end up paying their bills. Some of that will be accomplished by rolling back the tax shifts, but there are also other steps necessary to get our national exchequer back in order after six years of negligent financial management. (Just as Jimmy Carter had to bring in Paul Volcker to the Fed to clean up the mess that Nixon and Ford left him, thereby gifting us the stable money of the past quarter-century.) That does include something about Social Security, though the monstrous changes that only Bush and a clique of connected i-bankers really want. Hell, why not grab the Balanced Budget Amendment from Newt's old slip of paper and let Bush veto that, too, so Obama can run on it in 08?

3) Reassert the rule of law by reinstating habeas corpus in this country and dismantling any programs run by these monsters that sink America to the level of our so-called enemies, recognizing that we're creating enemies by being barbarians so the current strategy is not only deeply immoral but also counterproductive.

4) Make sure the world knows that Article I of COTUS (presumably there are still a few copies floating around that weren't used as toilet paper by some GOP hack over the past six years) covers Congress and not the executive for a reason. The best thing that can happen for America at home and abroad is for that idiot to be seen as a marginal figure in American politics, to the extent that is possible at least in a system where the Speaker of the House has nothing like the power of a prime minister.

5) I'll take your "kill some government programs" point but elaborate a bit. Some examples of evil government programs that should be starved to death at once include "secret" prisons, illegal searches of electronic communications, Gitmo, support for genocidal theocrat "charities" in Africa under the guise of combatting HIV-AIDS, and so on. Clearly, there's a lot of cancer that needs to be excised by the Democrats in the next two years.

6) Come up with something on education to supercede that idiotic Every Child Left Behind nonsense. A thoughtful, pragmatic approach, not the
rigid doctrinairism that has characterized formal debates on education in the past ("pour money into failing schools no matter what, and all hail the mighty Union" vs. "anything government touches turns to rot, so let's privatize the lot of them by giving everyone vouchers to go to Jesus camp") is the only way out.

7) Take two serious, necessary steps to improve America's national security position. The first, and most important, is not Iraq but Nunn-Lugar. It simply must be fully funded. Instead of propagandizing about a country that probably won't weaponize its nuclear program - and even if it does, won't pose a threat to us anyway, only a pathetic little sliver of an Apartheid state, so ultimately what Iran does with its nuclear program is not an _American_ problem - it makes far more sense to combat the very real threat of some corrupt Russian general selling a nuke that already exists to someone who wants to use it. (Besides, if that happens does anyone think MAD has any bearing? We're not going to destroy Russia unless it's actually the Russian government who attacks us, so there is no deterrence available short of stopping the crooked and the evil from ever transacting.) The second necessary step is to find a moral, honorable way out of Iraq. _Completely_ out. We have no right to steal any Iraqi territory for bases, etc. In an ideal world, a settlement would probably include reparations for the needless damage we've caused to that country. Nobody's going to propose such a thing, but surely there are people with real ideas who can emerge now that our government has had a national course of antibiotics.

Here's what I hope happens over the rest of this decade. Democrats do some or all of the above. They therefore sweep into state and national offices in even greater numbers in 2008, riding a wave of national optimism when people see that government, when run by people who have some basic competence, actually can make their lives better. Then, with a unified government, the Democrats can finish with the necessary structural reforms that only they can do. But by then people will have lost their nerve for reform because some of the long-term medicine will have short-term pain, such as Volcker's righting of our money policy caused massive interest rates in the early 1980s. Also, undoubtedly Democrats will have overreached on guns or gays or some other side-issue, and the public will have forgotten about what scum the last Republican majority were. So in 2010 President Obama will find himself with a narrow Republican majority in at least one chamber of Congress. That will prevent the sleaze that we all know is inevitable in government that remains under the thumb of a single party for long. And hopefully the Republicans that emerge then are better than the current crop of pathetic loser ideologues.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Brilliant posts, CRS and Gladwell.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> 1.) I do not accept that what I would consider a fair tax system is "class warfare." I believe the phrase is nonsense.
> 
> 2.) Do not be arrogant, fine. I'd like for the Dems not to be arrogant. But neither have I seen any signs of humility from conservatives, even since Tuesday.
> 
> ...


Very telling that you translated "class warfare" into something strictly about the tax code. It goes much deeper than that IMO. You yourself have internalized this to a great degree. I draw this conclusion from your honest answer of what you considered your best shot of getting wealthy (lottery). The class battle I was referring to includes the tax system, as this is how some wish to be punative, but it is much more. It is the killing of the American Dream; the belief that you can work hard, pay your taxes, live a good life and set up your children for even more success. Ninety nine percent of first generation immigrants believe this (included the left's most favorite immigrant group, the illegals) but the left has killed this concept in many US demographic groups and is working hard to kill it in all it would seem.

We probably will differ in how to save SS as we probably differ in its purpose. It would seem that much of the US population now thinks that SS is designed to be their major, if not only, source of income in retirement. That is not how it was presented by the President that started it and part of "fixing" it, IMO, is restoring the view to the general populace that it is meant as a supplement, not a major or sole source.

You presume too much in #4. If you stop and think, do I not argue for a basic universal healthcare? Do I not defend the need for good public schools? Have I not repeated being against the war? Letting Europe handle Iran? Of course many of my positions that appear leftwing are not but mainly what I see as the best way to be fiscally responsible while developing a productive society.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> 2) End the nasty and vicious class warfare (the _real_ class warfare in this country, not the bogeyman trotted out by the intellectually dishonest right) of the outgoing clique by eliminating *the Bush tax shifts.*


Tax shifts? What does this little doublespeak mean precisely please?



SGladwell said:


> Here's what I hope happens over the rest of this decade. Democrats do some or all of the above. They therefore sweep into state and national offices in even greater numbers in 2008, riding a wave of national optimism *when people see that government*, when run by people who have some basic competence, actually *can make their lives better.*


Perfectly stated SG, thank you. That perfectly defines the difference between people like myself and people like you. My life is made better (or worse) by me, not the government. True the gov can do things that make it harder for me, i.e. raise my taxes, limit how much I can set aside into retirement accounts, etc. but that just means I need to work that much harder. The choice is mine and no one elses. I do not sit around waiting for the government to "make my life better". I think that most that do sit around waiting for this end up not only disappointed but also in a shabby chair inside a shabby dwelling with *shudder* shabby clothes!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Very telling that you translated "class warfare" into something strictly about the tax code. It goes much deeper than that IMO. You yourself have internalized this to a great degree. I draw this conclusion from your honest answer of what you considered your best shot of getting wealthy (lottery).


Well, in my specialty, in general there is a bit of a ceiling, and I've pretty much hit it. It's a mistake for you to try to take an unrelated comment I made about my personal situation and try to extrapolate that into a policy statement. People who go into print journalism know that, with rare exceptions, they are not going to wind up super-rich. In many other occupations, it's the same way. We accept it.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Here's one example of what I see as class warfare, Democrat style: 

Tax cuts which allow people to keep more of their own money are not just bad policy but morally wrong. Taking that money through taxes is not only good policy but the proper thing to do. Anyone earning too much money should be punished for trying to get too far ahead of the rest of the country and brought back down toward the average because that's simple justice.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

rojo said:


> Here's one example of what I see as class warfare, Democrat style:
> 
> Tax cuts which allow people to keep more of their own money are not just bad policy but morally wrong. Taking that money through taxes is not only good policy but the proper thing to do. Anyone earning too much money should be punished for trying to get too far ahead of the rest of the country and brought back down toward the average because that's simple justice.


I can't speak for all liberals everywhere, but the basic idea is that the richer one is, the more one can afford to contribute to society - indeed, the more stake one has in society.

However: I am opposed to penal taxation, and am appalled at inefficiencies and waste in government. I would be pleased as punch if society could meet its needs with radically less taxation. But in any case, those needs must indeed be met.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

rojo said:


> Here's one example of what I see as class warfare, Democrat style:
> 
> Tax cuts which allow people to keep more of their own money are not just bad policy but morally wrong. Taking that money through taxes is not only good policy but the proper thing to do. Anyone earning too much money should be punished for trying to get too far ahead of the rest of the country and brought back down toward the average because that's simple justice.


_For the first time when America was in a war footing in our whole history, they gave two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top 1 percent of us.

Now, I'm in that group for the first time in my life.

And you might remember that when I was in office, on occasion, the Republicans were kind of mean to me.

But as soon as I got out and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. It was amazing. I never thought I'd be so well cared for by the president and the Republicans in Congress.

I almost sent them a thank you note for my tax cuts, until I realized that the rest of you were paying the bill for it. And then I thought better of it.
_

-- Bill Clinton


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Well, in my specialty, in general there is a bit of a ceiling, and I've pretty much hit it. It's a mistake for you to try to take an unrelated comment I made about my personal situation and try to extrapolate that into a policy statement. People who go into print journalism know that, with rare exceptions, they are not going to wind up super-rich. In many other occupations, it's the same way. We accept it.


You made that choice though. That is quite important in this conversation. Economists refer to this as an "indifference curve". You chose the combination of what your job entails vs. how much it pays.  Are you not making enough to live a nice life and set your kids on their way? Are you not setting money aside for retirement? Why would you feel the choices you have made makes me obligated to pay higher taxes? That is pretty much what eludes my comprehension.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Fogey said:


> I can't speak for all liberals everywhere, but the basic idea is that the richer one is, the more one can afford to contribute to society - indeed, the more stake one has in society.


Disregarding trust fund babies and *cough* royalty, the richer one is, the more productive one has been to obtain said riches, hence one has already contributed more to society than most. It is sad a liberal like you equates tax burden as one's sole contribution to society.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> You made that choice though. That is quite important in this conversation. Economists refer to this as an "indifference curve". You chose the combination of what your job entails vs. how much it pays. Are you not making enough to live a nice life and set your kids on their way? Are you not setting money aside for retirement? Why would you feel the choices you have made makes me obligated to pay higher taxes? That is pretty much what eludes my comprehension.


Of course I made that choice. However, a lot of people who make a lot less money than I do did not have the options I had. I chose to do what I enjoy and I am well-paid for it by the standards of my industry; others are concerned with mere survival. It is not that they should take from you to give to me -- they should take from both of us to help those who are not endowed with the ability to do better. A 35 percent tax rate means far less to to a person making $1 million year than it would to a person making $10,000. He'll still have a large home and Oxxford suits. I don't have a problem with being taxed at a higher rate than someone making less than I do. If you have a problem with it, that's fine, but chances are there will never be sufficient numbers of people who feel your way to change it. So you're just going to have to live with it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Of course I made that choice. However, a lot of people who make a lot less money than I do did not have the options I had. I chose to do what I enjoy and I am well-paid for it by the standards of my industry; others are concerned with mere survival. It is not that they should take from you to give to me -- they should take from both of us to help those who are not endowed with the ability to do better. A 35 percent tax rate means far less to to a person making $1 million year than it would to a person making $10,000. He'll still have a large home and Oxxford suits. I don't have a problem with being taxed at a higher rate than someone making less than I do. If you have a problem with it, that's fine, but chances are there will never be sufficient numbers of people who feel your way to change it. So you're just going to have to live with it.


A person making 10k pays 0% income tax. Actually, they usually pay -40% or so thanks to our Earned Income Tax Credit. So your argument is quite specious my friend. Also, your argument predicates those making a lower income are doing so due to lack of ability. Again, specious, as some of the smartest people I know are rather poor while I know several people of rather limited intellectual abilities but have done quite well. Again, by and large, it breaks down to choices. Yes there are exceptions, but the exception should not set policy for the vast majority.

Why do we not have a flat tax? Actually a two tier system is what most people mean when they say "flat tax". Say 0% on the first 50k and something reasonable on the rest, 17-20%? Eliminate the loop holes and double taxation and we are in business.

Lastly, you are no doubt correct, there are far more people that feel as you do, that my success, which I have busted my hump to achieve, obligates me more than the crackhead with a 200 IQ. This however does not make your viewpoint rational, correct, not the best choice.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

rojo said:


> Here's one example of what I see as class warfare, Democrat style:
> 
> Tax cuts which allow people to keep more of their own money are not just bad policy but morally wrong. Taking that money through taxes is not only good policy but the proper thing to do. Anyone earning too much money should be punished for trying to get too far ahead of the rest of the country and brought back down toward the average because that's simple justice.


In other words, you believe that one of the core Enlightenment ideas that was instrumental in the very founding of our country, the social contract theory of Rosseau, was nothing but class warfare.

On that, we could not disagree more.

By contrast, what people of my ilk see as class warfare is the constant abuse of society at large by those who benefit most from the opportunities it has provides (i.e. the rich) and their unceasing attempts to raise the ladder over the hands of those who are trying to climb their way above their current lot in life by fomenting an increasingly rigid class structure. Economic mobility, as is well known, is higher in Old World commie pinko France than it is in the Land of Liberty. For that, you can thank the systematic structural impediments to economic advancement thrown up in the last six years, including the Bush tax shifts but certainly not limited to them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> In other words, you believe that one of the core Enlightenment ideas that was instrumental in the very founding of our country, the social contract theory of Rosseau, was nothing but class warfare.
> 
> On that, we could not disagree more.


Even a formulation such as Rawl's does not turn social contractarianism into socialism or class warfare. In fact, while is has been a 15 years or so since I read up on the theory, it seemed to me this school of thought was greatly concerned with being fair to all, the whole "veil of ignorance" concept?



SGladwell said:


> By contrast, what people of my ilk see as class warfare is *the constant abuse of society at large by those who benefit most from the opportunities it has provides (i.e. the rich) *


How do you define "rich" and please enumerate the societal abuses you speak of. Details please, precise and clearly defined.



SGladwell said:


> Economic mobility, as is well known, is higher in Old World commie pinko France than it is in the Land of Liberty.


Source please (and not moveon.org).

Regards


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> In other words, you believe that one of the core Enlightenment ideas that was instrumental in the very founding of our country, the social contract theory of Rosseau, was nothing but class warfare.
> 
> On that, we could not disagree more.
> 
> By contrast, what people of my ilk see as class warfare is the constant abuse of society at large by those who benefit most from the opportunities it has provides (i.e. the rich) and their unceasing attempts to raise the ladder over the hands of those who are trying to climb their way above their current lot in life by fomenting an increasingly rigid class structure. Economic mobility, as is well known, is higher in Old World commie pinko France than it is in the Land of Liberty.


My understanding of our history and that of France is that one of the supreme differences is the acceptance of social contract theory as promulgated by Rosseau. Ours is a country based on individual rights and liberties, while theirs is a country based on a bit of submission of the individual to the group.

It is my understanding that social contract theory is something that has been introduced to American politics gradually over the years by the left. I think that if you read the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution (complete with a ban on income tax), this is borne out.

I may be wrong, and know that you are a history professor, but this has always been my understanding.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*smacks forehead*!

He has spent his life in academia? Explains a great deal. When your worth is largely defined by how long you have occupied the same chair, it makes it rather hard for one to appreciate most occupations require productivity, results, revenues and profits....and "revenues" are not how big a grant were you able to land!

Thanks for the insight Matt.

Regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> A person making 10k pays 0% income tax. Actually, they usually pay -40% or so thanks to our Earned Income Tax Credit. So your argument is quite specious my friend.


I wrote "than it would," which is different than "than it does," the implication being that we don't have a flat tax, but this would be the inequity if we did. But I probably could have been more clear.



Wayfarer said:


> Lastly, you are no doubt correct, there are far more people that feel as you do, that my success, which I have busted my hump to achieve, obligates me more than the crackhead with a 200 IQ.


Oh come now. You've done farm labor, so you know that people can "bust their humps" and not make a lot of money. You know that your current situation is partly skills and partly effort, probably nearly equal parts both. But you know better than to write as if every poor person is lazy. A good many of them break a sweat more often than either of us, I'd wager.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> In other words, you believe that one of the core Enlightenment ideas that was instrumental in the very founding of our country, the social contract theory of Rosseau, was nothing but class warfare.
> 
> On that, we could not disagree more.


Rousseau advocated a state-sponsored religion, government-imposed limits on property, and censorship as part of his social contract. What has this to do with the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Fogey said:


> I can't speak for all liberals everywhere, but the basic idea is that the richer one is, the more one can afford to contribute to society


"From each according to his means," in other words?



> I would be pleased as punch if society could meet its needs with radically less taxation. But in any case, those needs must indeed be met.


So you're saying "to each according to his needs"?

"From each according to his means; to each according to his needs." Where have I heard that before?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> Oh come now. You've done farm labor, so you know that people can "bust their humps" and not make a lot of money. You know that your current situation is partly skills and partly effort, probably nearly equal parts both. But you know better than to write as if every poor person is lazy. A good many of them break a sweat more often than either of us, I'd wager.


Yet another misunderstanding by a member of the left. "Busting their humps" does not just mean showing up at a job 40, 60, 80 or even 100 hours a week. Nor does it mean expending great amounts of energy providing physical work. Success in America doesn't come from "hard work" alone, it must also come from an ability to take risk. To put your financial security on the line and do so in a manner that you will be rewarded for it. Farm work is incredibly safe from a financial perspective. Entrepreneurship on the other hand is incredibly risky. Therein lies the difference.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs show me where the Democrats have cut taxes for the poor? The Republicians have done it many times. But, the Dems. almost always, if not always, raise the taxes on the poor when they can. Whereas, the Repubs lower them when they can. Can you show me anywhere where the Dems have lowered the taxes for the middleclass? Republicians have.

Fogey why does Prince Charles live on peoples taxes? Shouldn't he go out and get a job like everybody else? Only the king or queen should be able to live off the backs of tax payers, as long as she is paying taxes herself, other wise she shouldn't be living off any taxes. That kingdom over there has conned the tax payers too long.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> Farm work is incredibly safe from a financial perspective.


This is one of the most mis-informed comments I've ever read on the Interchange.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

rojo said:


> "From each according to his means," in other words?
> 
> So you're saying "to each according to his needs"?
> 
> "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs." Where have I heard that before?


The Christian Holy Bible:

_All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need._ (Acts 2:44-45)..._There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need._ (Acts 4:34-35)


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Fogey said:


> This is one of the most mis-informed comments I've ever read on the Interchange.


What financial risks are associated with farm work? Clearly there is risk of injury, but employers are legally required to insure against this.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

It seems that the Christian God isn't keen on tax evasion.

From the fifth Chapter of the Book of Acts (Holy Bible):

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. 3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." 
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. 
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?" 
"Yes," she said, "that is the price." 
9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also." 
10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> Market pressures and low prices for many agricultural goods will cause more farms to go out of business over the 2004-14 period. The complexity of modern farming and keen competition among farmers leave little room for the marginally successful farmer. Therefore, the long-term trend toward the consolidation of farms into fewer and larger ones is expected to continue over the 2004-14 period and result in a continued in employment of self-employed farmers and ranchers and slower-than-average growth in employment of salaried agricultural managers. As land, machinery, seed, and chemicals become more expensive, only well-capitalized farmers and corporations will be able to acquire many of the farms that become available. The larger, more productive farms are better able to withstand the adverse effects of climate and price fluctuations upon farm output and income. Larger farms also may have advantages in obtaining government subsidies and payments as these payments are usually based on per-unit production.
> In addition, the agriculture sector continues to produce more with fewer workers. Increasing productivity in the U.S. agriculture industry is expected to allow greater domestic consumption needs and export requirements to be met with fewer farmers, ranchers, and agricultural managers overall. The overwhelming majority of job openings for self-employed farmers and ranchers will result from the need to replace farmers who retire or leave the occupation for economic or other reasons.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

And we were talking about farming from the aspect of your everyday field worker, not your owner/operator of the farm.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> And we were talking about farming from the aspect of your everyday field worker, not your owner/operator of the farm.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_worker


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Fogey said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_worker


From your source:

"In the United States, the term is most commonly used to describe low-wage workers performing manual labor in the agriculture field. Today in Europe and the United States these are often immigrants who are not working on valid work visas since local immigration authorities would rather they be vulnerable and easy to deport as illegal aliens. The United States has enacted the *Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 20to remove the restraints on commerce caused by activities detrimental to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers; to require farm labor contractors to register; and to assure necessary protections for migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, agricultural associations, and agricultural employers.*"

So, they are supposed to be insured. It may be the case that they are not, and if so that is an enforcement issue that needs to be dealt with. That does not change the fact that farm work conducted within legal bounds is NOT financially risky.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Anyone who believes there is no financial risk on the part of farm laborers is likely a pampered, elitist child who has never done the work himself. In some states, many of them are not paid by the hour, but by the piece. If the weather turns bad or the crop is destroyed, they are not going to be paid, even if they have traveled hundreds of miles to work at that farm. And then the laborer must trust that there will be a fair accounting of his piecework, which is no given, at least in my experience.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> Anyone who believes there is no financial risk on the part of farm laborers is likely a *pampered, elitist child who has never done the work himself.* In some states, many of them are not paid by the hour, but by the piece. If the weather turns bad or the crop is destroyed, they are not going to be paid, even if they have traveled hundreds of miles to work at that farm. And then the laborer must trust that there will be a fair accounting of his piecework, which is no given, at least in my experience.


Thanks for the ad hom.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*A few comments*

First off, Gladwell, great series of posts.

Second, WA, you finally said something I agree with. Charles Mountbatten should be kicked off the public dole and invited to find a job. Same with his mother.

Now, a couple of comments on the OP.

1. Making the tax cuts permanent? There may be people whose taxes are too high, but Bill Gates, Paris Hilton, and Sam Walton's children and grandchildren are not among them.

I am always amazed that conservatives consider that taxation=punishment, and that rich people got what they have entirely by their own unassisted efforts. Taxes are what we all pay to support the government that ensures many benefits for all of us. For instance, without a national defense, federally controlled ports, highway and air transport, and an educated workforce, even people whose wealth comes from starting and running a big company would not be able to benefit from their intelligence and enterprise. Compare the opportunities Microsoft enjoys to sell software here in the United States, where the government enforces copyright, with the opportunities Microsoft has to sell software in China, where free enterprise enables anyone with access to a CD burner to sell Windows. It is simply a fact that rich people have benefitted tremendously from the orderly society and markets that their taxes buy, and it is reasonable to expect them to pay to support that government. Incidentally, some of the richest people in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, agree that their taxes are too low.

2. It is the Democrats who proposed the Department of Homeland Security and Bush who opposed it. It is Bush who has weakened our national defense by overextending our military and by diverting the national defense from Bin Laden, who actually harmed our country, to Hussein, who never did and posed no threat to us.

3. Bush's proposal was to abolish Social Security. Incrementally, to be sure, but totally. His claim that Social Security is facing bankruptcy was a lie, plainly put. See what Josh has to say for more detail:

4. Class warfare. Nothing we can do can stop it. Class warfare is happening, and up until Tuesday the rich had the President and both houses of Congress on their side. Pretty much the only time I hear someone talk about class warfare is when the wingers complain about liberals' pointing out who's winning it.

5. School choice--this is maybe the biggest phony issue of all. People can send their kids to any school they want. Here's the thing you may be losing sight of: property taxes are not tuition payments. We all pay property taxes because we all benefit from having a public school system that works. If you think we should do what it takes to make public schools better, I agree with you on that, but somehow I doubt that's what you're talking about.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I still remember reading this article on migrant workers, published several years ago. It's online and perhaps some of you will find it interesting:

https://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/silencefields.html


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

lol. Brilliant.

I suspect we'll just leave that bit of holy writ on the cutting room floor, though, since it impedes the even-more-sacred free market doctrine!

Cheers.



Fogey said:


> The Christian Holy Bible:
> 
> _All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need._ (Acts 2:44-45)..._There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need._ (Acts 4:34-35)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Oh come now. You've done farm labor, so you know that people can "bust their humps" and not make a lot of money. You know that your current situation is partly skills and partly effort, probably nearly equal parts both. But you know better than to write as if every poor person is lazy. A good many of them break a sweat more often than either of us, I'd wager.


You missed my point. You had stated how not everyone has your abilities and therefore does not earn like you do. I pointed out under your logic, the crackhead with an IQ of 200 would not fit into that paradigm.

My current position would not exist if I had not given my head a shake when I was about 24 and say to myself, "Son, you do *not* want to be 60 living hand to mouth and humping into this place every day." I quickly mobilized and got myself in gear. My point here is I almost did not make it. No amount of government "help", per SG, would have put me where I am now.

No comment on the two tier tax? First 50k tax free, all money over that at one reasonable rate, no loopholes but also no double taxation, i.e. capital gains, dividends, etc.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> Thanks for the ad hom.


I couldn't resist the opportunity to call a conservative a pampered elitist. You know, in the semi-rural county where I grew up, there were those of us kids who worked in the fields and those who lounged by the pool on daddy's coin. I knew that picking tomatoes would be of benefit down the line, I just knew it!
Haha!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> No comment on the two tier tax? First 50k tax free, all money over that at one reasonable rate, no loopholes but also no double taxation, i.e. capital gains, dividends, etc.


That's not bad, but I draw the line at not heavily taxing inheritance or gifts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Why is the bible being quoted? That is simply preposterous in the context of this thread.

Jack actually said something sensible (I am writing the date down now). We need to fix how we fund public schools. Property taxes is just plain a dumb way to do it. I mean, does one need to have a Ph.D. in economics to figure out that poor areas will not be able to raise the same revenues for education as wealthy ones? I am a huge proponent of good public schools (whether they are "good" is a whole other thread though) and thinking we can fund a good school in a ghetto with property taxes is fairly ludicrous.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I couldn't resist the opportunity to call a conservative a pampered elitist. You know, in the semi-rural county where I grew up, there were those of us kids who worked in the fields and those who lounged by the pool on daddy's coin. I knew that picking tomatoes would be of benefit down the line, I just knew it!
> Haha!


Yes, I have to say in regards to farm work, everyone is at risk. I have many friends and aquaintances that still farm. It is very risky, very hard work, and rarely can a family farm support itself these days. I have a good friend with 400 acres under cultivation in Ontario and like everyone else I know that farms, he has a full time job elsewhere (he works at Fords....for now...)


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

crs said:


> That's not bad, but I draw the line at not heavily taxing inheritance or gifts.


For any particular non-venal reason? Gift/inheritence tax crates almost no revenue, taxes money that has already been taxed and widely held (by both proponents and opponents) as a way to social engineer.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That's not bad, but I draw the line at not heavily taxing inheritance or gifts.


Nope, that's double taxation. That money was earned already once and taxed already once. I can not figure out why a $1.00 deserves to be taxed a second time when someone dies or gifts. I mean, one minute the $1.00 is sitting there, all happy with its taxes paid, Uncle Angus dies and WHAMMO! Taxed again. Makes no sense.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, I have to say in regards to farm work, everyone is at risk. I have many friends and aquaintances that still farm. *It is very risky, very hard work*, and rarely can a family farm support itself these days. I have a good friend with 400 acres under cultivation in Ontario and like everyone else I know that farms, he has a full time job elsewhere (he works at Fords....for now...)


But I am sure you understand the difference in the financial risk between the farm worker and the farm owner. Don't you?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

iammatt said:


> For any particular non-venal reason? Gift/inheritence tax crates almost no revenue, taxes money that has already been taxed and widely held (by both proponents and opponents) as a way to social engineer.


An organization of millionaires that supports keeping estate/inheritance tax says repealing it could cost $1 trillion over the first 10 years.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> But I am sure you understand the difference in the financial risk between the farm worker and the farm owner. Don't you?


HS, having grown up in a farming community, worked on many farms myself, now run an eight figure P&L sheet and have an MBA......yeah, I probably do.

The farm worker has three main risks: his employer/industry has a bad year and he starves. He gets sick and therefore starves. New technology makes him obsolete....so he starves. No, farm workers do not have a capital investment, are not concerned with ROI, etc., but like any low skill worker, they live a very precarious life, financially speaking. However, no one forces them to do it.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> HS, having grown up in a farming community, worked on many farms myself, now run an eight figure P&L sheet and have an MBA......yeah, I probably do.
> 
> The farm worker has three main risks: his employer/industry has a bad year and he starves. He gets sick and therefore starves. New technology makes him obsolete....so he starves. No, farm workers do not have a capital investment, are not concerned with ROI, etc., but like any low skill worker, they live a very precarious life, financially speaking. However, no one forces them to do it.


Agreed, and I would say that the first two risks apply to every employee of every industry and the third applies to most employees in most industries.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> But I am sure you understand the difference in the financial risk between the farm worker and the farm owner. Don't you?


Actually, farmers can buy crop insurance, although around here they generally don't, they just count on a lean year every three or four years and plan for it. And, of course, if times get really tough, they can carve up part of the farm into housing developments, admittedly an option not available in more remote areas. And they get federal and state subsidies. Not an easy life for the farmer, but the workers have no safety nets, absolutely none.

You're just wrong on this one. Accept and move on.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> Actually, farmers can buy crop insurance, although around here they generally don't, they just count on a lean year every three or four years and plan for it. And, of course, if times get really tough, they can carve up part of the farm into housing developments, admittedly an option not available in more remote areas. And they get federal and state subsidies. Not an easy life for the farmer, but the workers have no safety nets, absolutely none.
> 
> You're just wrong on this one. Accept and move on.


I should have been more clear in my first post. I should not have said that farm workers have no financial risk. I should have said that farm workers have no financial risk greater than your average low level employee. And it was perfectly clear that that is not the level of risk necessary to succeed financially in the United States.

edit: And it's also clear that the baseline level of financial risk for low level employees pales in comparison to the financial risk of entrepreneurs.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> I should have said that farm workers have no financial risk greater than your average low level employee.


I think they do. The McDonald's has a problem, it's not a problem affecting the entire fast-food burger industry. You have options, job mobility with your locale, and the work is year-round. You get too much rain and the tomatoes rot, or unpredicted frost and the oranges die, it affects all the farms equally in that area, and you must relocate hundreds of miles to look for work where chances are the farms already have enough workers. You have a narrow time frame to make money within a given locale.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

iammatt said:


> For any particular non-venal reason? Gift/inheritence tax crates almost no revenue, taxes money that has already been taxed and widely held (by both proponents and opponents) as a way to social engineer.


Oh, it's double taxation of money we're onto yet, is it? Then can you please explain to me when the taxation is "double"? I get paid, and I pay taxes on that money. So then, when I buy something with money that has already been taxed, and I pay sales tax on the purchase, is that double taxation? And then the owner of the store pays taxes on the income from what I paid him. Is that triple taxation? And the owner of the store hires someone to wait on me, pays that person, but that person has to pay taxes on what he is paid. Are we up to quadruple taxation yet?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Oh, it's double taxation of money we're onto yet, is it? Then can you please explain to me when the taxation is "double"? I get paid, and I pay taxes on that money. So then, when I buy something with money that has already been taxed, and I pay sales tax on the purchase, is that double taxation? And then the owner of the store pays taxes on the income from what I paid him. Is that triple taxation? And the owner of the store hires someone to wait on me, pays that person, but that person has to pay taxes on what he is paid. Are we up to quadruple taxation yet?


I think some of our conservative friends would prefer the supposed Arcadia of anarchy. Then, without taxes, governments, or police, everyone would prosper, surely. I'm sure their retirement investments would do all sorts of interesting things in those conditions.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Oh, it's double taxation of money we're onto yet, is it? Then can you please explain to me when the taxation is "double"? I get paid, and I pay taxes on that money. So then, when I buy something with money that has already been taxed, and I pay sales tax on the purchase, is that double taxation? And then the owner of the store pays taxes on the income from what I paid him. Is that triple taxation? And the owner of the store hires someone to wait on me, pays that person, but that person has to pay taxes on what he is paid. Are we up to quadruple taxation yet?


Surely you can see that your first example is indeed double taxation but the rest is just tripe? When money changes hands, the cycle starts anew and your retained wealth becomes fresh revenue for an organization or individual.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Fogey said:


> I think some of our conservative friends would prefer the supposed Arcadia of anarchy. Then, without taxes, governments, or police, everyone would prosper, surely. I'm sure their retirement investments would do all sorts of interesting things in those conditions.


My goodness, you're right. _I never thought of that._ I hereby recant everything I've said in this discussion heretofore.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Surely you can see that your first example is indeed double taxation but the rest is just tripe? When money changes hands, the cycle starts anew and your retained wealth becomes fresh revenue for an organization or individual.


Some might argue that money _changes hands_ when it is inherited.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Some might argue that money _changes hands_ when it is inherited.


Some might. I could see the case for it but I see a bigger case against defining it as such. Pragmatically, it is unlikely to affect me and mine but I would like to ensure things like small/medium privately owned businesses, farms, etc. are not harmed by the owners death.

Glad to see you agree with the rest of the concepts I posted though concerning Jack's thoughts.

Regards


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Sorry I have not participated as much as I would like here-been on vacation. Some great comments...I'll read thru and respond later.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

crs said:


> Some might argue that money _changes hands_ when it is inherited.


Yes, but it is not an "economic event" meaning that no resources have been used in any way. Nothing has been purchased, sold, converted or used.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Some might. I could see the case for it but I see a bigger case against defining it as such. Pragmatically, it is unlikely to affect me and mine but I would like to ensure things like small/medium privately owned businesses, farms, etc. are not harmed by the owners death.
> 
> Glad to see you agree with the rest of the concepts I posted though concerning Jack's thoughts.
> 
> Regards


Small businesses and farms are not harmed by the owner's death. The estate tax doesn't come even into play until we get into the 7 figure range.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

NoVaguy said:


> Small businesses and farms are not harmed by the owner's death. The estate tax doesn't come even into play until we get into the 7 figure range.


And quite often their value may be disproportionately high for their revenues, so they would be forced to sell to pay the taxes.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> Got your attention didn't I?
> 
> Okay so the bad guys won...but no biggie...silver lining is that a lot of fake Republicans got flushed out of the system of power. In my humble opinion this election was more of an indication of the power of the conservative trends in this country...
> 
> ...


Why? The economy was better before the tax cuts. Burden's on you to prove things would get better, and facts aren't on your side.



> 2. Make national security the highest priority. We may have honest disagreements on Iraq but gutting intelligence gathering over silly and rather inconsequential "privacy concerns" is handing Bin Laden a victory.


National security starts at the top. If the guy running the national security apparatus isn't up to the job, crap happens.



> 3. Reform Social Security. This is a silent but deadly train wreck happening in slow motion. Get ahead of this and become a party with some ideas for a change.


Well, if its a train wreck, its a train wreck that's getting further and further away. Each year the projected "doomsday" gets pushed further and further into the future. The reason: the economic predictions in the Social Security estimates tend to be extremely pessimitic.



> 4. Cool the arrogance. Go ahead and be proud of the accomplishment but reading in any mandate and letting things go to your head and the Democrats will be swept out of office for many years.


Well, that just sucks.



> 5. Kill some stupid government programs. If we learned anything from Tuesday or the last six years its that big government is totally dead.


I vote for Bush's faith based crap. Other than that, I want an expansion.



> 6. Stop the class warfare. In this economy most Americans know making $100K is just enough to support a family. No one making this thinks they are "rich" and raising their taxes looks unfair and doesn't really raise money for the treasury. The rich are soaked already.


Tax policy isn't class warfare. Republican talking points are class warfare.



> 7. Let people send their kids to the schools of their choice. How more democratic and free can you get. In every city it has been implemented, the scores go up and the public schools get better! This area is especially popular among inner city minorities. We can't all go to Sidwell Friends but let's level the playing field some-these youngsters are the future.


I don't know where your data came from, unless it's the Cato institute. When controlled for economics and "bad students", private schools don't really do any better. They just look like they do, but (1) the bad students get kicked out and dumped into public schools, thus creating an apparent improvement in private schools and an apparent failure in public schools, and (2) like it or not, private schools get students from wealthier backgrounds, who tend to perform better, and (3) private schools rarely bother with things like special education.



> Well that's my two cents. Sometimes you get what you pay for.


Do I gotta say it? The 2 cents wasn't worth a cent.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> And quite often their value may be disproportionately high for their revenues, so they would be forced to sell to pay the taxes.


i've never seen hard evidence of this happening.

it's an urban legend, like reagan's welfare mom from chicago sipping pina colada's on the beach.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

NoVaguy said:


> Why? The economy was better before the tax cuts. Burden's on you to prove things would get better, and facts aren't on your side.


Uhhhh, no. We were in a recession either right before or right after George W. Bush took office (I think there's still debate over precisely when it happened), but pretty much all indicators are looking better now.



NoVaguy said:


> Tax policy isn't class warfare. Republican talking points are class warfare.


How do you figure? Class warfare isn't just about tax policy, but tax policy is a typical outcome of class warfare. What good comes from this "Two Americas" garbage and fomenting resentment against the wealthy?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

NoVaguy said:


> Small businesses and farms are not harmed by the owner's death. The estate tax doesn't come even into play until we get into the 7 figure range.


So no family has ever been troubled in passing on their farm or small business, from one generation to the next, over the estate tax? I guess the CBO is quite full of fiction writers then?



> For farmers, business assets made up a much larger proportion
> of estates' wealth: 51 percent in 1999 and 43 percent
> in 2000. Liquid assets made up a smaller, but still
> substantial, share of their estates: just over 40 percent in
> ...


Available at:

The document also discusses small businesses. It is very true not all estates are currently hit, but it is complete and utter rubbish to make your assertion.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

NoVaguy said:


> Why? The economy was better before the tax cuts. Burden's on you to prove things would get better, and facts aren't on your side.


Because yes, tax policy was the only economic variable in the two time periods. Seriously, you cannot be that simple?



NoVaguy said:


> Other than that, I want an (government) expansion.


I take that back.

Regards


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> The economy was better before the tax cuts. Burden's on you to prove things would get better, and facts aren't on your side.


If you look at jobs created and GDP per quarter the economy has definitely accelerated after the tax cuts. Supply side does work whether Kennedy or Reagan or others do it.



> National security starts at the top. If the guy running the national security apparatus isn't up to the job, crap happens.


There were no attacks since 9/11 so Bush and Rumsfeld and others were doing something right.



> Each year the projected "doomsday" gets pushed further and further into the future.


I'm not sure where you get your information. All studies I have seen show a real problem that has not been addressed and the demographic trends are real.



> I vote for Bush's faith based crap. Other than that, I want an expansion.


I have never seen any government programs that do a better job than the private sector can.



> Tax policy isn't class warfare. Republican talking points are class warfare.


The problem with increasing taxes on the rich is threefold:
1. By any economists measure the tax rates are steeply progressive.
2. The vast majority is middle class so any impact on them is where the action is.
3. Raising the upper class taxes just create more incentive for evading taxes through legal but complex tax schemes so at the end of the day not much more revenue is raised.

WSJ had a great article on the World Bank's recent study on tax codes globally. Conclusion? The simpler the better. We have a ways to go in the U.S.



> I don't know where your data came from, unless it's the Cato institute.


My data on school choice comes from independent researchers like Carolyn Hoxby at Harvard. Even the democrats agree on this. It's big Ed that's holding up reform. What's the harm in letting people spend their education dollars where they want? It's our money after all, not the governments.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Backing off of the rhetoric a little*

Idealogues on both sides can go ahead and skip this posting, or post a scripted dereagatory comment.

I know that it is possible to measure (percentage vs. gross) the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration to serve whichever political idealogoy you worship, but both measurements did indicate that some benefit was extended to all levels of society. Even James Carville was able to admit that Bush taxcuts benefitted the middle class. Out of personal self-interest, I do hope that those tax cuts are made permanent. As someone who does not stand to inherit vast (actually, any) ancestral wealth, the inheritance tax cuts are not particularly sacred to me. It would also be nice if they finished getting rid of the marriage penalties in the tax code.

I've read, and perhaps many of you have also read, that the Democrats owe much of their success to "Blue Dogs". A seven point conservative strategy might not be such a bad thing for the Democrats to consider. I don't know that it should be the seven points that started this list, but confronting a situation where the voting poulace is largely united on issues but divided on parties indicates to me that both parties are controlled by their own extremists.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

agnash said:


> It would also be nice if they finished getting rid of the marriage penalties in the tax code.


I agree. If such a penalty does exist, it ought to be abolished. I'm sure Bill Gates and friends can make up the difference.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Okay so the bad guys won...


Just reading that and you know that you are going to have a fair, balanced and rational discussion.

And a few posts later, it's the people defending the Democrats that are accused of not elaborating seriously enough! The Interchange never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Just reading that and you know that you are going to have a fair, balanced and rational discussion.


I don't think having a strong point of view equates to being wrong. The Dems are already proposing several harmful pieces of legislation.

I was approaching this with an eye to the conservative forces that were at work in this election. Many citizens voted Democrat because they were tired of the spending in Congress. The Democrats would be smart to embrace these trends...if they go back to their old ways then they will lose power for many years.

Of course to be fair, the Republicans need to find the Reaganesque principles again that brought them to power in the first place. Hopefully new blood like Mike Pence will help.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Fogey said:


> It seems that the Christian God isn't keen on tax evasion.
> 
> From the fifth Chapter of the Book of Acts (Holy Bible):
> 
> ...


You clearly misunderstand the Bible. And that other Bible quote you clearly misunderstand if you are adding it to this one. The quote above clearly is about lying and not giving, since the lie could have been about anything with the same end, such as what one ate. There is no tax in the New Testament, except to governments, such as Ceasars.

1; there is no tax. 2; don't have to donate anything. 3; some places the early Church the rich did kept most of there money and property and gave as they thought needed, or even as one wanted to give or not.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> The Dems are already proposing several harmful pieces of legislation.


Such as?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*If You Have To Ask...*



jackmccullough said:


> Such as?


That is one of those things, that if you have to ask, there's really no use discussing it with you. I say this in all seriousness, as some of the things proposed are clearly in opposition to accepted the accepted knowledge on the topic, such as minimum wage. (This is where Etienne will jump in to argue with me. Go for it bud, I will not even argue).


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> (This is where Etienne will jump in to argue with me. Go for it bud, I will not even argue).


Not really. We've covered that kind of debate several times before and the search function works. If you have to pretend that there exists a single solution that is accepted on a controversial topic, anybody can see how ridiculous that is. I will not even have to point it out.

I mean you will even find people who seriously deny that there exists a man-caused global climate change (or, and there is more basis to that claim, that we should do something about it). So when it comes to a topic like the minimum wage, even more difficult to prove, claiming that the people who have a different opinion than you on the subject are just stupid people incapable of accepting what "everybody knows" is just plain silly.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Bravo, Etienne! Good job of not feeding the trolls.


----------



## erasmus (Sep 26, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> There were no attacks since 9/11 so Bush and Rumsfeld and others were doing something right.
> 
> I have never seen any government programs that do a better job than the private sector can.


The first point is not correct. Our friends and allies in the UK, Spain, Turkey, Afghanistan and elsewhere would unfortunately disagree. I don't have the citation in front of me but global terrorist incidents and/or lives lost have seen a steady increase since 9/11. I believe it was a Rand study. Remember terrorism is a global issue and ignoring what happens outside the US would simply set us up for another 9/11.

By golly, the second point appears obviously correct and ironclad, doesn't it? Let's dig a little deeper. I love the implication that the men and women serving in the armed forces, a lowly "government program", are less competent, skilled or motivated than if they were serving in the private sector. Sir, you show your joke- and speechwriting potential for a certain blue state senator from Massachusetts!

Sarcasm aside, it seems the first casualties of a political "discussion" thread are unbiased reasoning and pragmatism. But I admit I do find these threads fascinating, disturbing and amusing for all of those reasons (or lack thereof I should say).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jack and Etienne:

Nice to see you also did not waste a chance to _ad hom_ me too. Yes, clearly I am a) a troll and b) ridiculous. I will say though, I never said anyone involved was "stupid", merely that you would not be swayed by any argument I could present. If you feel the proper term for this situation is "stupid", who am I to argue?

Bravo on bringing global warming into it....if you could just have worked Hitler in, it would have been a trifecta!

And Jack, how can I troll you son, when you claim to have me on ignore? That's double think even for you.

In perpetual mirth.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Etienne, I'm not sure what Wayfarer said, since he's on permanent ignore, but it sounds like he's still up to his usual low standard of reasoning. Good show for calling him on it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Fogey said:


> Etienne, I'm not sure what Wayfarer said, since he's on permanent ignore, but it sounds like he's still up to his usual low standard of reasoning. Good show for calling him on it.


Can a person get much lower than attacking _ad hom_ and in the same breath stating they are immune from dealing with any consequences over it? If I am truly on ignore JLPogey, then why do I continue to be of such interest to Little Lord Faulderoy?

I feel like someone just tried to punch me through a fence and then backed up so I could not take a jab back. What a coward. If I were a chicken, you would feel morally obligated to treat me better. That says volumes about your character.

I wonder if people should be dis-allowed from directly insulting other users when they have said person on ignore. It hardly seems like a position to foster debate and conversation, the very lynch pin of The Interchange.

Regards


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Maybe if the insults stopped we can all have a meaningful debate. This thread has degenerated badly.

Regards,

gmac (just kidding)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Can a person get much lower than attacking _ad hom_ and in the same breath stating they are immune from dealing with any consequences over it? If I am truly on ignore JLPogey, then why do I continue to be of such interest to Little Lord Faulderoy?
> 
> *I feel like someone just tried to punch me through a fence and then backed up so I could not take a jab back.* What a coward. If I were a chicken, you would feel morally obligated to treat me better. That says volumes about your character.
> 
> ...


Reading the Interchange always brings a smile. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I will say though, I never said anyone involved was "stupid"


Neither did I. Read more carefully. I presented a position and said that position was ridiculous and stupid. I did not say the person was (I never do).

By the way, complaining that people will not read you when you have stated your position in the same way ("feel free to answer but I will not argue") is quite rich.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> So when it comes to a topic like the minimum wage, even more difficult to prove, *claiming that the people who have a different opinion than you on the subject are just stupid people *incapable of accepting what "everybody knows" is just plain silly.


WDS appears yet again.



Wayfarer said:


> I will say though, I never said anyone involved was "stupid", merely that you would not be swayed by any argument I could present. If you feel the proper term for this situation is "stupid", who am I to argue?





Étienne said:


> I presented a position and said that position was ridiculous and stupid.* I did not say the person was (I never do).*


It is an exceptionally bad case of WDS when you misquote yourself.

Cheers


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> It is an exceptionally bad case of WDS when you misquote yourself.


Sorry, I did not think I had to check. Indeed, I used "ridiculous", not "stupid". Appart from that nitpicking, do you have something meaningful to say?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Sorry, I did not think I had to check. Indeed, I used "ridiculous", not "stupid". Appart from that nitpicking, *do you have something meaningful to say?*


When you cannot admit to your own words right in front of your eyes, things have lost all meaning.

WDS*TM

Again, no hard feelings.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> The first point is not correct. Our friends and allies in the UK, Spain, Turkey, Afghanistan and elsewhere would unfortunately disagree.


So it's Bush's fault OTHER countries were attacked?!? WTF???



> I love the implication that the men and women serving in the armed forces, a lowly "government program", are less competent, skilled or motivated than if they were serving in the private sector.


I think defense has to be part of the government by its very nature but you choose a curious example. Look at the manufacture of military equipment...my cousin works at Lockheed and they very much are private like most military contractors and most consider our planes to be the best in the world for defense.

Look at Amtrak or the Postal Service-these are remarkably poorly run enterprises that annually show $1billion of near billion dollar deficits. Have you been to a U.S. post office lately? Now contrast that with the experience of service at a local Fedex or UPS location...note the lack of package tracking feature on all but a few mailing options. There is lots of room for improvement.


----------



## erasmus (Sep 26, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> There were no attacks since 9/11 so Bush and Rumsfeld and others were doing something right.
> 
> I have never seen any government programs that do a better job than the private sector can.


I was simply correcting a factual error in your premise in claim #1 above. There were in fact subsequent attacks globally since 9/11. So your conclusion about Bush/Rumsfeld is invalid as stated above. Sort of a basic rule of logic.

Your second statement made a sweeping generalization regarding government programs. I simply pointed out a possible exception to your claim. Exceptions are indeed "curious" things especially if you make ideologically driven blanket statements. My apologies for the inconvenience.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

erasmus said:


> I was simply correcting a factual error in your premise in claim #1 above. There were in fact subsequent attacks globally since 9/11. So your conclusion about Bush/Rumsfeld is invalid as stated above. Sort of a basic rule of logic.


Yes but none in the U.S. The President of the United States' primary responsibility is to us and not to the rest of the world. I would argue that the overall scale of sophistication and intensity are not as great. When elaborate plots are undertaken it seems that they have been broken up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

erasmus said:


> I was simply correcting a factual error in your premise in claim #1 above. There were in fact subsequent attacks globally since 9/11. So your conclusion about Bush/Rumsfeld is invalid as stated above. Sort of a basic rule of logic.


So what exactly is this basic rule of logic? That any attack in the world is a failure of Bush and/or Rumsfeld? Or that Artisan Fan was not specific enough and when he said, "There were no attacks since 9/11" he needed to be more specific and state, "There were no attack *in the US* since 9/11"?


----------



## erasmus (Sep 26, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> There were no attacks since 9/11 so Bush and Rumsfeld and others were doing something right.
> 
> I have never seen any government programs that do a better job than the private sector can.


At the risk of being pedantic, I see at least two logical fallacies in the first statement above.

(1) Informal fallacy: As already described above, this is a "a pattern of reasoning which is false due to the falsity of one or more of its premises" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy).

(2) Causal fallacy (correlation implies causation): Even after adding the much needed qualifier "attacks in the US", the first statement is rhetorically and logically deficient. Details enumerated here if you wish to drill down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation).

I happen to value unbiased reasoning and would like to see more of it across the board from Presidents dealing with WMDs to AskAndy members making sweeping claims.

The second statement also has logical as well as empirical issues but I will spare you the details.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

iammatt said:


> My understanding of our history and that of France is that one of the supreme differences is the acceptance of social contract theory as promulgated by Rosseau. Ours is a country based on individual rights and liberties, while theirs is a country based on a bit of submission of the individual to the group.


I don't think you're wrong except in thinking of social contract theory as discrete poles (as I understand your post above) rather than a continuum. It is certainly true that America and the UK by temperament put more of a premium on individual rights and liberties compared to group obligations, whereas Germany and France (along with most Asian countries) have historically stressed group obligations over individual rights. (I write "historically" because I think the 68'ers redefined "Old Europe's" place on that continuum, bringing them closer to the Anglo-American temperament. As, in the case of Germany, did the OMGUS-driven Gründgesetze.) Well, I think you recognize that in the case of France, but it's also been true of America since even before the birth of our (in French terms) Second Republic. The tension between individual liberty and the social contract can be seen throughout early debates about what kind of nation we should be.



iammatt said:


> It is my understanding that social contract theory is something that has been introduced to American politics gradually over the years by the left. I think that if you read the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution (complete with a ban on income tax), this is borne out.


You know, I'm still trying to find this "left" you guys keep talking about. When I look at the overall American political landscape since WWII, I see center-right, far right, and loony right, with a tiny and powerless minority not fitting into one of those categories but that managed to claw its way briefly into some minor prominence in the first election after Watergate before being slapped down again. Obviously, San Fran is different from Georgia and from the rest of the nation, but America is still a very, very right-wing country.

That aside, there was lots of resistance to the idea in the early days of the Republic. But there was some forceful advocacy of the social contract, too. For example, consider Hamilton's decision to nationalize the states' uprising debts. In practice, the Founders never refused to employ collective action when it furthered the interests of their new state.

Also, when I think of many of the limits in the Constitution on national power, there's one giant original sin looming behind most of them. While certainly it does not invalidate a position that the only reason it existed was to perpetuate evil, it does cast a rather dimmer light on it.



iammatt said:


> I may be wrong, and know that you are a history professor, but this has always been my understanding.


To be clear to all, my scholarship has nothing to do with early American history, and it never was an intellectual focus for me. I claim no superiority of knowledge in that regard to anyone else on this subject based on the piece of paper on my office wall.

Also, I readily admit that when it comes to politics I hang my hat less on theory, which is to say _ideology_ (which on the American right has often been elevated to a kind of secular theology) and more on results. For example, the empirical evidence on the relative cost and efficacy of a single-payer universal health care system compared to our triage-based sick care system is overwhelmingly in favor of the former. Therefore, I strongly support universal health care. Likewise, torture has never been shown to be an effective tool in getting important information, but it is degrading to both the torturer and the torturee, so I oppose it.

Also, one mustn't forget that some ideas of great people are simply proven obsolete over time. There is one big example in the parts of the COTUS describing the census that we all know well, but I would suggest that a ban on income tax is simply incompatible with the modern nation-state.



Wayfarer said:


> *smacks forehead*!
> 
> He has spent his life in academia? Explains a great deal....


Wayfarer, thanks for being a mensch and voluntarily pointing out that your weltanschauung is driven by a craven sense of anti-intellectualism so we can view your posts through that prism. But for the record, I'm only in my second year as an assistant prof, and my past decade includes a 2-year (plus sabbatical) stint as a business analyst for McKinsey & Co. For that matter this year may be my last in academia, as I'm considering a career change.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> Also, when I think of many of the limits in the Constitution on national power, there's one giant original sin looming behind most of them. While certainly it does not invalidate a position that the only reason it existed was to perpetuate evil, it does cast a rather dimmer light on it.


I do not disagree with the rest of your post, rather believe that we simply have different ideas of what is the correct way going forward. That is what makes for politics, no?

I do think that you assessment of the Constitution is a bit off and overly harsh. One bad sentence should not invalidate a document that for the most part set the foundation for liberal democracies. Included in that document was the ability to change the provisions of the constitution, and we have done so both in terms of slavery and income tax. I do not disagree about the need for an income tax in the modern world, but was using it to point out the fact that the founders tended towards individualism rather than collectivism.

I know may people who worked at McKinsey, you stayed longer than most.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> Wayfarer, thanks for being a mensch and voluntarily pointing out that your weltanschauung is driven by a craven sense of anti-intellectualism so we can view your posts through that prism.


I "call BS there". Yes, guys with an MPH and MBA and constantly ruminating in the forum about going back to finish a doctorate degree are most certainly craven anti-intellectuals. I mean, it is obvious!

Cheers


----------



## classicmike (Nov 12, 2006)

I am one who received the benefit of the tax cuts. What did I do with the extra money?

1. Increased the amount we give to charity annually. I was in control of where the money was used, not a congressman who is afraid to tell where the money is wasted via anonomyous "earmarks".

2. Invested in capital equipment for our business. This caused an increase in sales. Guess what, it caused me to hire three new employees full time at over $50k each.

On the issue of school vouchers. If you want to make a good education accessible to lower income families. The only way to do that is to eliminate the fat guarantees to sub - standard teachers. Let the quality teachers who make a difference partake in the upside they create by manufacturing a better product (educated children). As someone who is in the top earning percentages, these opportunities are availible to my family because I can afford it. It is not an option for middle and lower class wage earners. Is that fair? The great congress of ours is more interested in the Teachers Union's vote that educating it's constituents children.

Just one voter's two cents.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

classicmike said:


> 2. Invested in capital equipment for our business. This caused an increase in sales. Guess what, it caused me to hire three new employees full time at over $50k each.


Sure you created three new jobs, but they were for straight, white males weren't they? WEREN'T THEY!?!?

I figured I would beat someone else to that, it has to be coming.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> You know, I'm still trying to find this "left" you guys keep talking about. When I look at the overall American political landscape since WWII, I see center-right, far right, and loony right, with a tiny and powerless minority not fitting into one of those categories


The folks who show up at the anti-war demonstrations, what are they? Center right, far right, or loony right? Or are they the tiny and powerless minority?

To which of the four categories above do Michael Moore and George Soros belong? Center right? Obviously they're not powerless.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> When you cannot admit to your own words right in front of your eyes, things have lost all meaning.


Still unwilling to actually discuss the arguments, eh? That's okay, no hard feelings, this "thinking and discussing" stuff is way overrated anyway. Feel free to have the last word, I am done trying to have a discussion with you here, it is obviously pointless.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Still unwilling to actually discuss the arguments, eh? That's okay, no hard feelings, this "thinking and discussing" stuff is way overrated anyway.* Feel free to have the last word, I am done trying to have a discussion with you here, it is obviously pointless.*


That sounds familiar....oh wait....have I not stated that to you more than once? Well good to see we're finally on the same page.

In all seriousness, you simply are unwilling to acknowledge anything you disagree with. I can freely admit there is still debate on things such as minimum wage, however when I presented you with an analysis some time ago from the world's most prestigious economic group, showing the vast bulk of Ph.D.s in economics agreed on minimum wage, you totally discounted the information as *it disagreed with your already formed opinions[/]b. That is fine, I am not one to begrudge someone their beliefs, however it leaves little room for meaningful discussion.

Cheers*


----------



## erasmus (Sep 26, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> Also, I readily admit that when it comes to politics I hang my hat less on theory...and more on results.


What??!?! This is crazy talk. Do you mean to say results actually matter? What utter nonsense! Sheer rubbish! Downright un-American! No self-respecting reasonable person argues on results when the Interchange is a perfect opportunity to build reputation and credibility by trading insults and passing hot air. What kind of a loony left wing nutcase are you anyway? Huh, huh?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> There were in fact subsequent attacks globally since 9/11. So your conclusion about Bush/Rumsfeld is invalid as stated above. Sort of a basic rule of logic.


But I was addressing only the U.S. so my point stands.



> But for the record, I'm only in my second year as an assistant prof, and my past decade includes a 2-year (plus sabbatical) stint as a business analyst for McKinsey & Co. For that matter this year may be my last in academia, as I'm considering a career change.


Interesting...I worked for McKinsey as a consultant as well.



> I am one who received the benefit of the tax cuts. What did I do with the extra money?
> 
> 1. Increased the amount we give to charity annually. I was in control of where the money was used, not a congressman who is afraid to tell where the money is wasted via anonomyous "earmarks".
> 
> ...


Well said. Those extra jobs you created may have led to home purchases and then purchases to fill the homes with furniture. This is the great accelerator behind the cuts.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm not sure why some Democrats are opposed to school choice. Why not try the programs in more places based on the success they have had so far?


----------



## erasmus (Sep 26, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> But I was addressing only the U.S. so my point stands.


Unfortunately, even with the amendment, your statement is fundamentally flawed, as I described above. You assume causation but show only correlation.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> I'm not sure why some Democrats are opposed to school choice. Why not try the programs in more places based on the success they have had so far?


Good question. IMHO (and it is only an opinion) a more liberal person will prefer a socialized, egalitarian solution to education's problems like fixing the public school system so that all may benefit. Giving monetary breaks for those who want to choose their school gives a little too much back in the people's hand and may give some an advantage. The conservative, free market type will want more of a say in their childs education and want the right to pick where their child will be taught. If public schools lose out in the competition for enrollment, then it is their own fault. Maybe then they will start doing a better job of educating. Both sides have some merit. Interesting dilemma. The children are at stake in this issue.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The problem with the liberals is that they are too close to the teacher's union to take a careful look at this. Their goal is admirable, but throwing more money at the current system without taking a hard look at it and making some hard choices will just produce more of the same.

On the other hand, I'm not totally in favor of using government funds to fund or effectively fund Christian schools. (The independence of Christian Schools from government interference is as important as the idea that the government won't establish a national church in my opinion.)

Only when we love our children more than the involved parties love the pork barrel will we even begin to solve this problem.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

First, it is incorrect to say the Democrats are against school vouchers. They are deeply divided on the issue. In my state a number of Democrats favor vouchers in a handful of cities where the public schools are so bad that they were taken over by the state.

I do not favor vouchers for several reasons.

1.) I do not trust the assertion that school vouchers have been a success for all concerned. It goes against common sense and my experiences.

2.) Even with vouchers, private education still would be out of the financial reach for most families. Vouchers largely would help families who need the help least.

3.) Good private schools make need-based financial aid a priority. It is a fallacy that vouchers would then allow those schools to offer education to even more students because many of these schools do not wish to grow. My old boarding school has stated that it has no desire or intention to grow beyond its enrollment of slightly more than 400 because its small size is one of its strengths. Thus far, support of grateful alumni has been sufficient enough that roughly 40 percent of the students receive some financial aid. It is not a burden but a joy to be able to assist in this, and it should be the role of alumni, not the government.

4.) Not all private schools are good. Unrelated to the voucher issue, The New York Times this year reported on "prep schools" that are mere basketball factories. I do not want my tax dollars supporting such places:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/...408741cba1781f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Disagree on a few points:

Many inner city families sacrifice a lot to send their children to private schools so they can better their lives. Vouchers would help defray the costs. Vouchers are also a way to refund families that pay school taxes but do not use public schools.

Of course, not all private schools are good. But having the choice allows the parents to steer away from them. However, I don't think the sports factories are the majority. And I agree with your desire to not support them, but that goes to my previous paragraph, because not all parents want to support a public school system that they do not use.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs, 
You're correct that the Dems are divided however I'd like to address your four points.

1) That you don't trust vouchers and that it goes against common sense appear on the surface to be an emotional response. However you are correct that there is a debate regarding how effective these programs are/can be. I will say this however and that is that there is no debate that inner city schools are broken and regardless of tax money thrown into the soup they have produced little in the way of results

2) Many private schools offer tuitiion assistance and scholarships for students who cannot afford the full tuition. I would also be curious to see how costs come down once more students, armed with vouchers, begin to eye private schools as a viable choice. 

3) You are correct that a given school may not be interested in increasing its enrollment however I doubt that the given school is the only one available. You're point, however correct, does not address the efficacy of a voucher program. Think of it, without that voucher in hand the school in question wouldn't even be a consideration so there really is nothing lost. 

4) The beauty of a school voucher program is choice. Most "basketball factories" offer scholarships to their players. A parent must then perform due diligence in choosing a school with priorities that are in line with the educational goals of the student.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

rojo said:


> The folks who show up at the anti-war demonstrations, what are they? Center right, far right, or loony right? Or are they the tiny and powerless minority?


Today, they're everyone except the loony right, and maybe a few of them, too. Everyone with any sense is against the war, as it has transpired. Ca. 2003, it was pretty clearly "tiny and powerless minority" considering that they had no influence on anything but maybe some small fraction of some given day's news cycle.



rojo said:


> To which of the four categories above do Michael Moore and George Soros belong? Center right? Obviously they're not powerless.


How much power does Moore wield, in the US or anywhere else, besides the power to get people to turn out and watch his (usually entertaining, and at least marginally relevant) agitprop? As for Soros, yeah, I'd put him in the center-right from a global perspective.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> Today, they're everyone except the loony right, and maybe a few of them, too. Everyone with any sense is against the war, as it has transpired. Ca. 2003, it was pretty clearly "tiny and powerless minority" considering that they had no influence on anything but maybe some small fraction of some given day's news cycle.


No it is not everyone except the looney right, but it certainly does include the looney left. 



> How much power does Moore wield, in the US or anywhere else, besides the power to get people to turn out and watch his (usually entertaining, and at least marginally relevant) agitprop? *As for Soros, yeah, I'd put him in the center-right from a global perspective.*


George Soros may seem center-right to you but from my perspective (actually center-right) he is on the left.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> I'm not sure why some Democrats are opposed to school choice. Why not try the programs in more places based on the success they have had so far?


I don't think the jury's out on the "success" of school vouchers, so that might be one reason. Another is that the brain drain from taking the smartest kids out of a school will make the environment there that much worse for the majority who remain.

I don't honestly know where I stand on this issue. I know that I'd want a ticket out if I were in a bad school. I also know that government outsourcing education funding to independent contractors (i.e. private schools) is a recipe for widespread corruption and increased costs, just as every other local "privatization" (e.g. natural gas) has been. And using tax dollars to send kids to religious schools (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Scientologist, whatever) is something that must be opposed by all civilized people tooth and nail.

What really interests me about your post, is how deeply you get into the chasm that separates, say, Matt and me. We all agree that education needs fixing, more or less, but one of the key disagreements is, at what level should change be made? You seem to be suggesting a Federally-mandated voucher program by speaking about "school choice" in the context of the Democratic liberation of the House and Senate. That makes you much more Big Government than someone like Matt, and maybe even more Big Government than the likes of me.


----------



## classicmike (Nov 12, 2006)

*Risk = Reward*​
In a Capitalist society, one is not paid for effort, but for results. Please remember, you either generate revenue or you are overhead! Job security equals the ability to generate revenue. As long as you are a cost, companies will be looking for ways to cut you out. This is what schools should be teaching instead of making sure no one gets cut from a team or club. This does not prepare anyone for the task of life.​
The real burden of society is bourne by the entrepenuers of the economy who show up for free every day and only get paid if they are successful. Fail, and you go home boke. These self employed pioneers pay the full amount of the employment tax (FICA) at thirteen percent, not the six and a half percent that employees pay. They also subsidize healthcare by paying the lions share of the cost of benefits they provide to employees.​
Please remember these facts when telling others what they owe to society. They have already paid far more of the bill before they even pay income tax!​


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

LOL.

I think that the trick (possibly not the right word) with being anti-big government is the willingness to do in the private sector what you are asking the government not to do. Perhaps this is some sort of pipe dream, but I remember as a teenager being inspired by the idea of the "thousand points of light."

Anyway, school choice is an interesting subject, but it is not in and of itself an answer. My experience with public schooling and trying to do our little part to improve it has been disappointing at best. I wrote about it a bit in another thread, so rather than redoing it, I'll just quote myself, but expand a bit. We have followed two paths in trying to do our part to help in education. One has been to provide scholarships for poor (usually minority although not a requirement) 14 year olds who have done well and have been accepted to a very good local high school. It has not been without pitfalls, but now going in to our fifth year, we are getting better at picking the children. The other is a charter school that I describe here:



iammatt said:


> The problem with education is that by the time the child reaches kindergarten age, his future is basically set. The years in which our parents read to us and talk to us are the most important in regards to how our language skills develop over the course of our lives. Being that language skills are paramount both in learning and in living, being behind at age six is basically a death knell for future performance.
> 
> I don't mean to sound so gloomy, or to evade your question, but my position on this is, in my opinion, well founded. I have sat on the board of a private foundation for several years that has poured literally millions of dollars into trying to improve education for disadvantaged youths and we keep having to go younger and younger. The problem is that it is a bit politically incorrect to intervene when they normally need first steps. Also, my wife is an educational consultant and has come to the same conclusion independent of us.
> 
> It is a worthy cause, but the solution is not trying to do better what we are already doing, but trying to do something different altogether.


The two experiences together further prove to me that nothing is as important as a strong base in reading from soon after birth. Also, a continuation of emphasizing the importance of education in the home.

You can let people choose schools all that they want, but if the parents who are choosing don't care about education, it is just a waste of the money that is being spent to implement the program.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Religious schools are usually the private schools that provide the excellent alternative to public schools. Catholic Schools teach, in addition to the core curriculum, religion and theology. They do not, as I perceive you believe, occasionally teach math and english in between religious indoctrinations. Why shouldn't they get the tax dollars if they provide the service of education?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

KenR, 
Excellent point. I think many of us would argue that public schools do attempt to indocrinate children into the acceptance of certain beliefs that many parents would find objectionable but because of financial constraints have no alternative. Shouldn't those parents have some rights?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> And using tax dollars to send kids to religious schools (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Scientologist, whatever) is something that must be opposed by all civilized people tooth and nail.


Yes, nothing is more civilized than discriminating against religiously affiliated institutions - excellent point! Let's prevent Catholic/Methodist/Lutheran etc. hospitals from treating people and receiving medicare/medicaid payments from the government, funded by tax dollars. And while we're at it, let's be even more civilized and stop all government payments, funded by tax dollars, for research at religiously affiliated colleges and universities and then we can stop all federal grants, scholarships, or loans from going to any student who should be so uncivilized as to attend a religiously affiliated college or university.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Yes, nothing is more civilized than discriminating against religiously affiliated institutions - excellent point! Let's prevent Catholic/Methodist/Lutheran etc. hospitals from treating people and receiving medicare/medicaid payments from the government, funded by tax dollars. And while we're at it, let's be even more civilized and stop all government payments, funded by tax dollars, for research at religiously affiliated colleges and universities and then we can stop all federal grants, scholarships, or loans from going to any student who should be so uncivilized as to attend a religiously affiliated college or university.


Well, independent schools seem to want it both ways, and while I can hardly blame them, it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

The National Association of Independent Schools is very cautious in wording its position on "school choice," clearly wanting vouchers "without
diminishing the institutional independence of independent schools."

In other words, they'd gladly accept money raised through taxation yet would not like those taxpayers to have any voice in how those schools spend that money, what those schools teach or what admission standards are applied.

My feeling is if you want to be independent, fine, be truly independent. I have impatience with them wanting it both ways.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> Well, independent schools seem to want it both ways, and while I can hardly blame them, it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
> 
> The National Association of Independent Schools is very cautious in wording its position on "school choice," clearly wanting vouchers "without
> diminishing the institutional independence of independent schools."
> ...


I'm not sure this has anything to do with my earlier point which was to ridicule the idea, per SGladwell, that "civilized" people would never allow tax money to go to a religiously affiliated school.

But to take up your point, do you think if you get a stafford load, pell grant, or some other type of government provided/subsidized loan that the government should dictate to the college/university what its curricula or admission standards should be, who should teach, etc? I don't believe that merely accepting tax money should leave the institution open to that kind of draconian government oversight - it doesn't happen at the collegiate level, I don't know why it should happen at the elementary or high school level either.

Frankly, I'm willing to leave the decision of whether a school is doing a good job educating a child with the parents. I tend to think government mandates are not particularly helpful.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*Second prize: a set of steak knives*

)

Coffee is indeed for closers.



classicmike said:


> *Risk = Reward*​
> In a Capitalist society, one is not paid for effort, but for results. Please remember, you either generate revenue or you are overhead! Job security equals the ability to generate revenue. As long as you are a cost, companies will be looking for ways to cut you out. This is what schools should be teaching instead of making sure no one gets cut from a team or club. This does not prepare anyone for the task of life.​
> The real burden of society is bourne by the entrepenuers of the economy who show up for free every day and only get paid if they are successful. Fail, and you go home boke. These self employed pioneers pay the full amount of the employment tax (FICA) at thirteen percent, not the six and a half percent that employees pay. They also subsidize healthcare by paying the lions share of the cost of benefits they provide to employees.​
> Please remember these facts when telling others what they owe to society. They have already paid far more of the bill before they even pay income tax!​


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

You say "government oversight," as if it's a centralized Big Brother, but that's not what I believe this is about. These little private schools want money collected through local taxation, yet without any accountability to school boards or to taxpayers. As someone who has no children in school yet pays local taxes that support the local school system, I have some voice in how my money is spent, but in a voucher system I would not have any say in how my tax dollars are spent at local private schools. This is unacceptable to me. I fully understand why the independent schools do not want to be accountable to a school board or to the general tax-paying public, and I don't blame them. But if you want my tax dollars, there are strings attached. If you don't want the strings, don't take the money. It's that simple.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> You say "government oversight," as if it's a centralized Big Brother, but that's not what I believe this is about. These little private schools want money collected through local taxation, yet without any accountability to school boards or to taxpayers. As someone who has no children in school yet pays local taxes that support the local school system, I have some voice in how my money is spent, but in a voucher system I would not have any say in how my tax dollars are spent at local private schools. This is unacceptable to me. I fully understand why the independent schools do not want to be accountable to a school board or to the general tax-paying public, and I don't blame them. But if you want my tax dollars, there are strings attached. If you don't want the strings, don't take the money. It's that simple.


That doesn't address his question about why you would seek a say in the curricula and standards of primary and secondary schools but not post-secondary schools. I am also curious why you think you should have a say in the first twelve years of education that you're paying for but not subsequent years.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> That doesn't address his question about why you would seek a say in the curricula and standards of primary and secondary schools but not post-secondary schools. I am also curious why you think you should have a say in the first twelve years of education that you're paying for but not subsequent years.


I would like a say in all of it, of course. But I see greater potential for misuse of funds, incompetence and just plain wackos at the local level. At least that's what we've seen in my state with for-profit preschools that take tax-collected money to serve poor neighborhoods. At college age, the kids are old enough to know when things are screwed up. Not so the younger you go.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> You say "government oversight," as if it's a centralized Big Brother, but that's not what I believe this is about. These little private schools want money collected through local taxation, yet without any accountability to school boards or to taxpayers. As someone who has no children in school yet pays local taxes that support the local school system, I have some voice in how my money is spent, but in a voucher system I would not have any say in how my tax dollars are spent at local private schools. This is unacceptable to me. I fully understand why the independent schools do not want to be accountable to a school board or to the general tax-paying public, and I don't blame them. But if you want my tax dollars, there are strings attached. If you don't want the strings, don't take the money. It's that simple.


They're accountable to the consumer - i.e., the parents. Presumably, the parents are tax payers too - it's their money as well. Do you feel the need to have some say in how social security recipients spend their money - when, in a large number of cases, they've earned more than they paid into it and hence are now spending your tax dollars?

If public school kids are required to take some standardized test in order to earn a diploma or move to the next grade, I certainly have no objection to requiring home schooled or private schooled kids from taking it as well - other than that, I see no reason to dictate to the schools. I think the parents are in a perfectly good position, and have the highest motivation, to make sure that their children are being educated.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> I would like a say in all of it, of course. But I see greater potential for misuse of funds, incompetence and just plain wackos at the local level. At least that's what we've seen in my state with for-profit preschools that take tax-collected money to serve poor neighborhoods. At college age, the kids are old enough to know when things are screwed up. Not so the younger you go.


Presumably, adult parents are making the decision - not the children.

You seem to imply that there are no bad public schools with idiot/wacko/incompetent teachers. At least with vouchers the options are expanded for middle class and poor parents.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> )
> 
> Coffee is indeed for closers.


Perhaps the opening sequence should be orientation for new teachers!


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

And cops. And politicians.

And probably the checkout girl at the grocery, while we're at it.



pt4u67 said:


> Perhaps the opening sequence should be orientation for new teachers!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> They're accountable to the consumer - i.e., the parents. Presumably, the parents are tax payers too - it's their money as well.


I'm not comfortable with the schools being accountable only to the consumer. My reservations are not entirely based on the quality of the book learning, but the admissions practices. Some of the very small private schools, often Christian-based, seem rather homogenous -- and the children's parents apparently do not have a problem with that. As the trusty EB notes, "The federal government's attempts to revoke the tax-exempt status of many Christian schools founded to circumvent the federally mandated racial integration of public schools further galvanized many Christian fundamentalists in the South."

https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-252663/fundamentalism

I would not contribute to my boarding school's annual fund if the school, very loosely affiliated with the Presbyterian chuch, did not practice diversity. But some religion-oriented schools have fought all the way to the Supreme Court to attempt to maintain their biased admissions policies. I would be outraged if such schools were getting my tax dollars.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> That sounds familiar....oh wait....have I not stated that to you more than once?


You did indeed. If you believe that I was not familiar with that type of point well before seeing you use it, you are just showing how much overly fond of yourself you are, though.



> In all seriousness, you simply are unwilling to acknowledge anything you disagree with.


Whatever. You might want to go back to that discussion about the minimum wage and re-read what I said then. Then you can come back, stop misrepresenting it and make a valid point, and I will answer.

Or you can choose to stay on the current topic and finally adress the arguments I made. That's fine too, but as I stated earlier, I will not answer on that point.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> You did indeed. If you believe that I was not familiar with that type of point well before seeing you use it, you are just showing how much overly fond of yourself you are, though.
> 
> Whatever. You might want to go back to that discussion about the minimum wage and re-read what I said then. Then you can come back, stop misrepresenting it and make a valid point, and I will answer.
> 
> Or you can choose to stay on the current topic and finally adress the arguments I made. That's fine too, but as I stated earlier, I will not answer on that point.


Again your fixation with me. See my other post.

Regards.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> You seem to be suggesting a Federally-mandated voucher program by speaking about "school choice" in the context of the Democratic liberation of the House and Senate. That makes you much more Big Government than someone like Matt, and maybe even more Big Government than the likes of me.


I did not say anything about who funds it or mandates it. I do think it is a good idea. Where it has been tried in DC, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin it has been a good success even by objective third parties.

I look at it simply, let's go with another solution since the current one is not working well enough. At the very least let's try more school choice where the government schools are failing.

The schools are funded by taxpayer money. If parents are not getting the performance they pay for thru taxes, why not let them direct those dollars elsewhere and perhaps supplement them for a better solution?

Also, the replies that imply that government schools would suffer from a brain drain are not true as the cities who tried the program see improvements in the public school.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

The gist of the comments to which I'm replying seem to suggest that being anti-government sponsorship of religion is being anti-religion. I would like to suggest in the main that this assumption is wholly false, before delving into details.



pt4u67 said:


> KenR,
> Excellent point. I think many of us would argue that public schools do attempt to indocrinate children into the acceptance of certain beliefs that many parents would find objectionable but because of financial constraints have no alternative. Shouldn't those parents have some rights?


Hypothetical: let's take your argument, and apply it to a case to which it would apply. Say there's a poor Muslim fundamentalist family with two daughters and a son. They can't afford to send those daughters to an Islamic school, even though there is coed one (they certainly exist) with a sterling reputation in math, science, foreign languages, and (men's) sports - all far superior to the local public school, as well as nearby Jesuit and Baptist schools - within easy driving distance, but they find it highly objectionable that the state allows girls to walk around with their hair exposed. Is it reasonable for this family to expect the state to foot the bill to send their three kids to this Islamic school?

If you answer no, then you either have to answer no to Christian/Jewish/Hindu schools as well, or else expose yourself as a bigot.



KenR said:


> Religious schools are usually the private schools that provide the excellent alternative to public schools. Catholic Schools teach, in addition to the core curriculum, religion and theology. They do not, as I perceive you believe, occasionally teach math and english in between religious indoctrinations. Why shouldn't they get the tax dollars if they provide the service of education?


You perceive wrong. I don't disagree with you that some religious schools are among the best schools in the country. Regardless, they should not get tax dollars because their raison d'être is not to mold children into model citizens, but into model members of their faith. Not that doing so is a bad thing in many cases, but it is simply not something that government should be in any way a part of.



Rocker said:


> Yes, nothing is more civilized than discriminating against religiously affiliated institutions - excellent point! Let's prevent Catholic/Methodist/Lutheran etc. hospitals from treating people and receiving medicare/medicaid payments from the government, funded by tax dollars.


If their "treatments" include a side-helping of religious indoctrination, then certainly taxpayers should not support them at all. And I'm all for forcing all hospitals receiving government funds to offer treatments they might not approve of, such as forcing Catholic hospitals to offer the morning after pill to all rape victims they admit.

Likewise, if a "religious" school offers a curriculum that does not include religious indoctrination, then that would be fine provided you assume in the first place that government should outsource education.



Rocker said:


> And while we're at it, let's be even more civilized and stop all government payments, funded by tax dollars, for research at religiously affiliated colleges and universities and then we can stop all federal grants, scholarships, or loans from going to any student who should be so uncivilized as to attend a religiously affiliated college or university.


If you cannot see that there is a trillion-fold difference between children (who go to school, with a forced curriculum) and adults (who go to college, and choose their own area of study, or who do research at colleges) then there's no helping you....


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Curious that Gladwell did not respond to my points or the Hoxby study...


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> If you cannot see that there is a trillion-fold difference between children (who go to school, with a forced curriculum) and adults (who go to college, and choose their own area of study, or who do research at colleges) then there's no helping you....


Um, it's parents who make that decision, not children - Is that difficult to grasp? No one's going to be giving little 6 year olds vouchers to spend as they like - clear?

I understand you love the state in all of it potential totalitarian grandeur and wish that it could stand in loco parentis instead of allowing individual autonomy and decision. I further see that you're enamored with the idea of using the power of the state to coercively effect your social agenda such that you would withhold funding from institutions, such as Catholic hospitals, which do a tremendous amount of good - but just not the way you believe it should be dictated.

Given your love of statist power to achieve your desired social vision, it would seem a logical consequence of your thinking that if a hospital that receives government funding should, for instance, be forced to perform abortions, then a doctor who receives government payment (i.e., medicaid/medicare) should also be forced to perform abortions regardless of his/her personal objections?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Mr Gladwell,

Calling the person who would not be for supporting the Muslim school (when they would willingly support the Christian school) a "bigot" is a bit extreme. There is a lot of stigmatization attached to that word and it should not be thrown around carelessly.

This person is illiogical and uninformed, certainly and probably somewhat self-centered. (I'm a Christian, by the way.)

However calling that person a bigot without understanding their basis (or lack of knowledge) for this opinion is a bit extreme.

You are very intelligent and make some good points. Even the ones I don't agree with are logically proposed and generally very well supported.

Don't you think more people would open themselves to your logic if you were a bit more tactful?


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Curious that Gladwell did not respond to my points or the Hoxby study...


Simply because I haven't had time to read it. I will in the near future.

If you've been paying attention to what you're reading, you would have learned that I really don't have an opinion on vouchers, beyond the basic moral value that taxpayer funds should not be used for religious indoctrination. I'm willing to convinced either way by serious people making a serious argument. But every time some religious nut wants to use my pocketbook to fund indoctrination (even indoctrination within my own confession) then the issue is settled for me definitively on the opposite side.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Calling the person who would not be for supporting the Muslim school (when they would willingly support the Christian school) a "bigot" is a bit extreme. There is a lot of stigmatization attached to that word and it should not be thrown around carelessly.


I respectfully disagree for two reasons.

First, the gentleman in question has not stated he would be against the hypothetical family using tax dollars to fund the religious indoctrination of their children. You make the assumption he would be, and I tacitly made it in posing the hypothetical. But at this point it is just an assumption, and one resting on flimsy grounds.

Second, as a general principle if one believes that all major mainstream world religions are not entitled to equal treatment under the law, then, yes, it is as if the word "bigot" were branded on her or his forehead.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I still say that you may want to make allowances for people who are less educated or less intellectual than you are. Not everyone always thinks everything through. It doesn't mean they are evil.

I'll let you respond to me and I won't respond back. I don't want a fight. I was just trying to illustrate the possibility that ignorance and bigotry are different. They are both problems, but Ignorance is far less evil than bigotry.


----------

