The economy

Quote:

---

We pay our taxes too.

---

Do you? If you're in the lower 45% or so, then no you don't.

Quote:

---

We pay our taxes too.

---

Again, we're not talking about a fairly applied tax for the basic functions of government. We're talking about 'soaking' the rich to fund all sorts of nonsense that the government never should have gotten involved in.

Quote:

---

That "steal from the rich" line always irritates me as well, as I said we pay our taxes. Taxation of the rich is not by any means overbearing and does not prevent them from doing what they want to do, which is how taxes are supposed to be.

---

You're saying that taking a third of someone's salary right off the top, before any other considerations, doesn't prevent people from doing what they want to do? I'm afraid that viewpoint flies in the face of reality and common sense. This is why tax cuts stimulate the economy--with less of their money being stolen, people are more likely to be able to 'do what they want to do'--which often involves buying things and hiring people.

On the other hand, when class warfare wins and we "soak the rich", much less of that happens, and we end up paying for our own envy.

Bear in mind I'm not advocating unreasonable taxation for ANYBODY. I generally believe a tax should never exceed about 20% of a person's income, and even then I'd be reluctant to accept that. I do think it reasonable to expect that the rich pay more.

If we were to truly want to lower taxes, we'd need to eliminate at least a good percentage of the waste and heavy expenditure in the government. For example, we're currently fighting a war on about five fronts. Historically, someone who fought a war on two fronts was considered to be either borderline crazy or desperate. War isn't cheap, and it's eating up a lot of our resources.

Personally, I think we'd be able to get by with much lower taxes if the power to audit the government existed. If private firms could audit the government, then they'd be more inclined to not waste so much money.

Finally, if we really want to eliminate waste of money, we should a lot fo the funding of the special interest. Of course, that'd cut out a lot of the revenue from bribes, so I doubt that'd happen.

Quote:

---

Bear in mind I'm not advocating unreasonable taxation for ANYBODY. I generally believe a tax should never exceed about 20% of a person's income, and even then I'd be reluctant to accept that.

---

Well, "The Rich" pay 35%. "The Poor" pay 0%. Who should have the relief more?

Quote:

---

If we were to truly want to lower taxes, we'd need to eliminate at least a good percentage of the waste and heavy expenditure in the government. For example, we're currently fighting a war on about five fronts.

---

I believe "war" on five fronts is something of an exaggeration--at least as far as the expenditure is concerned. Granted, combat is combat whether we have 100,000 troops over there or 500, but a task force or two in another country isn't going to 'break the bank'.

Meanwhile, there are several areas of the government that need to have less money than they do. The National Endowment for the Arts, for example, needs to be abolished immediately, and anyone who recieved money from it should be beaten severely about the head and shoulders. The "War on Poverty" has been going on for 40 years and poverty is winning--time to either change tactics or give up, and either way we need to quit throwing money at it. Education is severely bloated, and charter schools and private schools are doing much better with a fraction of the budget. Our government has no business setting up government schools anyway, so they need to leave it to the people who can do it.

Our tax code needs simplification. Not only is it so complex that people and businesses spend billions of dollars every year on experts to help them through the maze, but that complexity means that it requires a huge department to enforce the tax laws.

The War on Drugs--I don't have much company among my fellow conservatives in saying that we need to legalize, but dammit, I should. The government does not have the duty, nor the right, to stop you from doing stupid things to yourself. I can't send a man to your house with a gun to make sure you aren't sticking a screwdriver in your eye, or taking a bath with a radio on the edge of the tub, or listening to N'Sphync albums, or playing with matches--but if I think you're putting dope in your body, it's time to bust down the door? I don't believe for an instant that once we legalize drugs weed will be 5 bucks a pack, the Crips and Bloods will throw away their guns to open crank-and-flower shops, and nobody will do cocaine anymore, but the fact is the government is overstepping its bounds.

Pork-barrel spending--the quickest way to get re-elected is to bring money home to your district, and until it's stopped, the politicians are going to continue throwing money at their constituents to ensure their places in office--money that these people don't seem to realize was taken away from them to begin with.

Prison reform. Three words--Mariposa County, Arizona

You only really pay 0% if you make under something like 12,000 a year pre-tax. I agree that no one should pay more than 20%...but for that to happen we need to

1) Stop fighting wars
2) Stop supporting every country that has a minor problem and tell them to deal with it themselves
3) Get rid of SS, Medcaid, Medicare and adobt a healthcare plan that works. If we had that people could save more money and not be screwed by medical expense when they are seniors.
4) Cut Military/Defense/Weapons costs. All the money we spend on that could easily do things like Pay for everyone to go to college for free and do the health care plan that works. Also the defense and intelligence doesn't deserve the money that get if they can't even tell if Iraq has WMD(granted that is largely Bush's fault for scewing the facts anyways).

So many problems and no one is going to do a thing about it. It wouldn't be an easy transition but it is one that seems almost needed for the long run.

Here are projects under the current system

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...harts_P/p5.cfm

I suggest everyone take a look at all the different graphs on that site as they are quite interesting.

The government is there to serve the people. The majority of the PEOPLE are the middle and lower class, who can(at least when in lower class) have a very difficult time making ends meet. The rich could sacrifice more then 90% of their cash and still have plenty of money to survive, whereas lower class can even afford to sacrifice any of thier money.

And before you tell the poor to get off their lazy buts; lets say this, it is more cultural and the like then one's own fault. If you are born poor there is little chance that you will raise in social class, even if you are gifted. These people obviousally need help of some sort.

Now that we got that the lower class needs help, and that the government is there to serve the people, and that the lower class make up more of the people then the rich, and that the rich can afford higher taxes.. seems a moot point to me. Although we really need to fix how money goes through the system.. we really need to fix those damn holes, not to mention lessen the number of hoops.

Oh yes before I forget, funding education is serving the people... I would never have gotten an education if it wasn't for public schools.. my family doesn't have that sort of money, though we aren't poor.

And about privite schools doing better... HAH!... wow, that is off really off. Of course if you compare the public schools that need fixing then you will get screwed up results. but compare say my rural school, to a privite school taht gets oh what was it.. I believe 14,000$ a pupil. Well we ,on the last assesment of education and such that they do, scored just about as high in most areas, and if you added up the total differences between our scores my school was actually higher up. Now we get about 6000$ per pupil.

It is not whether it is privite or public, nor is it who has more money. it IS how the school is set up and run. That is what needs reformed.

p.s. no one should sacrifice 90% of thier income.. that was definately a radical number I used.

p.s.s. perhaps tax cuts should only be given to the rich that decisively give back to the community. And I mean decisively. that way we don't need to worry about the government screwing up the programs that should be in place.. but that they cant' manage for some odd reason.

Quote:

---

Well, "The Rich" pay 35%. "The Poor" pay 0%. Who should have the relief more?

---

Well, that's a tough one. Do we give relief to the rich who can afford to live extremely comfortably and pay their taxes with ease, or do we give relief to the poor who can barely afford to feed themselves as is? You know, I'm not quite sure on that one.

Quote:

---

The rich could sacrifice more then 90% of their cash and still have plenty of money to survive,

---

And still provide the jobs that keep the 'proletariate' employed? Just how many of those jobs do you think 35% off the top eliminates?

Quote:

---

And before you tell the poor to get off their lazy buts; lets say this, it is more cultural and the like then one's own fault. If you are born poor there is little chance that you will raise in social class, even if you are gifted.

---

Actually, that isn't the case either. Between 1979 and 1988, for example, 14% of people in the lowest 20% at the beginning were still there at the end. 15% were in the highest 20%.

Poverty is, in the vast majority of cases, a result of the choices a person makes, and if someone stays off drugs, completes their education, and doesn't have kids out of wedlock, the chances are better than 90% that they will not live in poverty.

Quote:

---

Now that we got that the lower class needs help, and that the government is there to serve the people, and that the lower class make up more of the people then the rich, and that the rich can afford higher taxes..

---

First off all, what they can "afford" is a moot point. We are a capitalist nation, and "From each according to his ability" has absolutely no place here. Moreover, the government's "service" to the people, in the majority of cases, has done more harm than good.

Quote:

---

And about privite schools doing better... HAH!... wow, that is off really off.

---

Check the statistics. There are a few good public schools out there, but by and large private and charter schools do much, much better with much, much less money.

Quote:

---

p.s.s. perhaps tax cuts should only be given to the rich that decisively give back to the community.

---

Three problems with that:
--First, "the rich" do decisively 'give back' to the community (four problems, actually, because earned wealth is not "taken" from the community). They hire people, buy goods, and services, and keep the economy rolling.
--Second, who decides what "decisively giving back" is, or how much it entails?
--Third, it is, perhaps not evil, but certainly very, very wrong, to set conditions on how someone can keep the money they earn. We should cut taxes on the people who pay them, rich or poor, because it's their money, not because we have some ulterior motive for letting them keep what's theirs.

Quote:

---

Well, that's a tough one. Do we give relief to the rich who can afford to live extremely comfortably and pay their taxes with ease, or do we give relief to the poor who can barely afford to feed themselves as is? You know, I'm not quite sure on that one.

---

Well, seeing as you can't relieve the burden on people who aren't bearing one, then do you 'give relief' to the people who are employing, buying, shipping, and building, or the people who have color TVs and pay-per-view but "can barely afford to feed themselves as is"? Poverty is a choice, not a result of some caste-system.

Poverty is not a choice, it is a result, and once in it, it is nigh on impossible to get out. I have seen and read several accounts on hard working poor that just can't get out. there is a limit to what they can or can't do. They need help. however just throwing money at them won't help. It has to be controlled, but in the end money will come to the forefront.

As for the schools-

Privite schools are a buisness, they have to do good to make money.

Public schools always will have money and thus either need a caring staff, or alot of watching done. But schools that are ran the same, perform the same. Which would thus leave that it does not matter whether it is privite-public, or rich-poor, rahter the things that it does. You only need so much money to accomplish what is neccesary, but you do need some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Poverty is, in the vast majority of cases, a result of the choices a person makes, and if someone stays off drugs, completes their education, and doesn't have kids out of wedlock, the chances are better than 90% that they will not live in poverty.

---

But in a country whose economic politics are pretty far to the right, a poor person will not afford to even begin educating himnself. And as it is in the USA today, a poor person will go to public school instead of private school and thus initially have a lesser chance of succeeding in life then the child of a rich person who pays for better education for his offspring.

Quote:

---

but in a country whose economic politics are pretty far to the right, a poor person will not afford to even begin educating himnself.

---

Actually, a poor person can indeed educate him or herself. Right out of the Army, with no real education or job skills, I was poor--and rather than remain poor and eat myself up with envy over people who are more productive than myself, I went to the community college. The first year and second (I changed majors, which made a third year necessary for an Associate's), I paid cash, while the third year I managed to get a scholarship.

Joining the Army got me the GI Bill--which anyone else can do. Failing the willpower to do that, I could have gotten any of literally thousands of grants, loans, or scholarships--hell, there are organizations that give you scholarships for being left-handed! The idea that if you're not rich you can't afford an education is just-plain false.

Quote:

---

nd as it is in the USA today, a poor person will go to public school instead of private school and thus initially have a lesser chance of succeeding in life then the child of a rich person who pays for better education for his offspring.

---

And if your kid's school doesn't teach your child the things he or she needs to know, you can't do it yourself? Hell, that's what my parents did.

Quote:

---

Poverty is not a choice, it is a result, and once in it, it is nigh on impossible to get out.

---

Actually, history has shown that it is very possible to 'get out'. How do you think Russian immigrants (who are the majority of new millionaires), or Cuban immigrants, or Korean immigrants, who not only suffer all the problems existant and non-existant of poverty and racism but often have to learn English as they go manage to pull themselves out of poverty?

Quote:

---

But schools that are ran the same, perform the same.

---

Except that as you've already noted, public schools are fundamentally different than other schools. Private and charter schools have to produce results--if they don't educate their students, the parents take their students elsewhere.. The only thing public schools have to do to keep getting money, on the other hand, is to keep spending money.

Moreover....
--If you send your kid to a Catholic school, your kid will be taught the virtues of Catholocism, and that it is superior to anything else. Natural enough, since it's a Catholic school.
--If you send your kid to a Baptist school, your kid will be taught the virtues of Baptism, and that it is superior to anything else. Natural enough, since it's a Baptist school.
---If you send your kid to a Jewish school, your kid will be taught the virtues of Judaeism, and that it is superior to anything else. Natural enough, since it's a Jewish school.
--So what do you think happens when you send your kid to a government school?

Well if you are thinking it will make someone loyal to the government you are wrong there.. Most of the people I know straight out of or in Highschool despise politics or government. Could just be my age group though.

Anyways the immigrants did that over several lifetimes. That doesn't really help the present poor, not to mention it doesn't aid the fact that some people in a family no matter how they are brought up may end up being scum.. which could throw your family back several generations.(although this is true for just about all social classes, the higher up, the harder it is to throw one all the way down to poverty.. and those rising are easily pulled back if a family member is not in the right mind).

Also dealing with education making you out of poverty. I was glancing over some values in a sociology book I had(i will have to look them up, I'll post them when I find them.. when I get around to it) but it showed quite obviousally that many people with college degree's are still poor... so obviousally education alone won't pull you out. Also niether will hard work plus education always pull you out. You need luck, and inherent talents, of which not everyone has a useful one. I am certian I have no talent that would help me get into any job, My education will do that.

And on an end point, I just said public schools need revamped, but quite frankly send me to just about any private school, and you'd have problems.. my mind set is ... well to put it simply... it is odd.

Quote:

---

Well if you are thinking it will make someone loyal to the government you are wrong there.

---

No, but it makes them think that government can solve their problems. That's why people today are still willing to put their money into a system that may give them a 1-2% return on their investment. At some point in the future that these people don't get to decide, if the government feels like it. It's why class-warfare is still so effective, and it's why people know so little about how the economy works.

Quote:

---

Anyways the immigrants did that over several lifetimes.

---

While some of them did indeed build 'family empires' over several generations, the vast majority become successful in this lifetime. The idea that you can't succeed unless you're lucky, or you were gifted with some extraordinary ability, is absolutely false--and thousands of people every day prove it so, to their own and our country's benefit.

Quote:

---

was glancing over some values in a sociology book I had(i will have to look them up, I'll post them when I find them.. when I get around to it) but it showed quite obviousally that many people with college degree's are still poor... so obviousally education alone won't pull you out.

---

What were these degrees in? If you go to college so you can have a degree in Native American Tribal Art, then while Native American tribal art may indeed be cool, you have nobody but yourself to blame if it's hard for you to find a job. Marketable skills aren't something you're born with--you either make the effort to learn them, or you don't. If you do, then you have something to offer an employer and in turn can demand higher pay or other perks. If you don't, then there's no reason an employer should hire you.

And another thing--the 40-hour work-week is for losers. Literally--if you refuse to work more than 40 hours in a week, you will 'lose out' in life, and again, you'll have no one to blame but yourself; 50-60 hours a week is a minimum if you intend to be wildly or even comfortably wealthy. And if you can't spare more than 40 hours a week to support yourself and your family, then I have no sympathy for you at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Marketable skills aren't something you're born with--you either make the effort to learn them, or you don't

---

This is not quite true, I can think of several "marketable" skills and traits that one can be born with. And that in some radical circumstances may be unlearnable(this is much tougher though.. I can get some hypothetical situations easily enough).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

No, but it makes them think that government can solve their problems.

---

Actually my social studies teachers have taught us that much in the government is broken and needs fixing. Fixing, not junking. And that is how my are sees it. Also we aren't a rich area.. so people are reluctant to throw money anywhere unless there is a guarenteened return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

What were these degrees in? If you go to college so you can have a degree in Native American Tribal Art, then while Native American tribal art may indeed be cool, you have nobody but yourself to blame if it's hard for you to find a job.

---

That is true enough.. and I ain't sure where the degrees were at. But you must admit some people have talents in some areas.... and a ... lets say .. a lack of talent in others. I know very well that in singing I wouldn't make a carreer... with how often I am sick.. I don't have a very good voice on average.(This previous year I was sick about 8/12-10/12 months.. monstly throat ailments.. so I don't talk or sing much) And while I guess I could sing on good days.. it would obviousally not be a good career for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

While some of them did indeed build 'family empires' over several generations, the vast majority become successful in this lifetime.

---

I really wish I had values on this. I do recall that sociology teaches that intergenerational social mobility if far greater then social mobility in this lifetime. And the numbers in the book weren't great either way. So while it is possible it isn't likely. Also the luck comment wasn't that only luck determines it, rather that luck can play a mighty role in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

more than 40 hours a week to support yourself and your family

---

How many hours in actuallity can you work while going to college? I know our community college is about 6 hour days plus if you have a scholarship you have to do community service. I am certian that would add up fast... maybe a couple more hours a day is possible though. also I guess you could really hit weakends. But there is alot at home needed done to. Cooking, Cleaning, Yard work(if you have a yard), maintanence of the house, Driving time.. etc...

Anyways My dad works maybe 8-10 hours a day 5 days a week and then a couple hours on saturday nad sunday. so prolly 45-60 hours a week.. which I don't consider bad at all.


I wish I had a video tape of my age group here at school.. you might find them interesting.. lost of opinions.. mostly about how the government is broken and how to fix it.. very liberal group for the most part. I am sad the in class debates have stopped.

Quote:

---

This is not quite true, I can think of several "marketable" skills and traits that one can be born with. And that in some radical circumstances may be unlearnable(this is much tougher though.. I can get some hypothetical situations easily enough).

---

Radical circumstances notwithstanding, I'll admit that there are indeed people who are for no discernable reason simply better at certain things; you can be born with a skill--or at least naturally have it, but that doesn't by any means apply to all marketable skills.. However, those who are not can still learn the same things--or different things. There are many different skills out there, and just because you can't be a systems analyst doesn't mean you can't pick up a CDL.

Quote:

---

Actually my social studies teachers have taught us that much in the government is broken and needs fixing.

---

As you've already demonstrated, your school is somewhat different from the average school. :D on the other hand, I've only seen one graduate of their school, and they'd managed to produce a liberal.

Quote:

---

That is true enough.. and I ain't sure where the degrees were at. But you must admit some people have talents in some areas.... and a ... lets say .. a lack of talent in others. I know very well that in singing I wouldn't make a carreer...

---

I can certainly understand that--I have a voice like a lovestruck basset hound. But if you can't sing, you learn to do something else. If you insist on theater, you can still learn to act, or direct, or a dozen different other professions, and if you don't, then the possibilities are endless--literally endless, because more than one person has created a job out of thin air. If, on the other hand, you can't sing, and you waste your time trying to get into the music business, and then bemoan your luck because no one wants to hear you sing, you should be laughed at.

Quote:

---

I really wish I had values on this. I do recall that sociology teaches that intergenerational social mobility if far greater then social mobility in this lifetime. And the numbers in the book weren't great either way. So while it is possible it isn't likely.

---

Actually, the United States is well-known for its social mobility, and such is commonplace--especially during the eighties--why do you think America is the only Western industrialized nation with no major Socialist or Labor party?
My own family is an example of this--my father grew up pretty nearly dirt-poor (and yes, because of the choices his parents made) and was in fact the first of our family to ever graduate from high school. While he's certainly not rich, he is indeed well-off.

Quote:

---

How many hours in actuallity can you work while going to college? I know our community college is about 6 hour days plus if you have a scholarship you have to do community service.

---

When I was getting my Associates (and again, when I get the two more years to put that up to a Bachelor's), I did forty when I could get them, and when I couldn't I wanted forty. In addition, I controlled my expenses. Working your way through college isn't at all easy, but it's not at all impossible either.

Well I asked about the since you said that a 40 hour work week isn't going to pull you out of poverty. But while in college I didn't think you could get much more then 40 hours and still do all the work required.. that was all I was wondering there.

hmm.. I wonder. our teacher gave a couple examples here... mainly that while some people percieve you as going up in one lifetime you actually remain in the same "class". Such as the so called working class which my soc. book says is 18000-35000(or somewhere around there.. I know 35k is right.. but the lower amount might be as large as 20k) dollars a year.. which is ranged from dirt poor to living comfortable. So I am just wondering if the definition is why it is taught that social mobility is low.

P.S. the dirt poor comment was that in our area you have to make at least 20000 dollars a year.. and that isn't including a whole lot, though they did put up a couple expenses that I found laughable. so you could probably make it but you would be dirt poor.