The problem I see with this statement is that in the current war it was people from `far away' who came to us on September 11. Now we can either go `far away' and destroy the infrastructure which made September 11 possible, or we can sit on our asses and wait for them to attack again. And in the modern world of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, that next attack could be much more deadly than September 11 was.
So, while I disagree with your general characterization of why and when the US has gone to war in the past, and while, unlike you, I have a great deal of respect for those who are all over the world putting their lives at risk so we can sit here and have this debate, I would argue that even if we accept your premises, we should still be overseas right now, and we should still be thankful to the young men (and women) standing in harm's way for us.
That may be, but I have to say that I think the dig about `Invade Iraq to increase approval ratings' was rather offensive.
We may indeed be going into Iraq, and we all know there are perfectly good reasons to do so. To pretend it has anything to do with approval ratings is silly, though.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that games shouldn't contain advertising? Or that military advertising is somehow worse than product advertising?
Re:China goes to the moon, go for it china!
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 0
Again, to return to a few basic points here:
YOU pretent. YOU pretent that YOU know how it was on Tianenmen. -- on the contrary, you have in the course of this conversation asserted not only that the violence at Tianenmen was caused by the protesters attacking the military, not vice versa, and that at any rate if there was violence on the part of the military, it was by individual soldiers on the scene and was not ordered by anyone at any higher level. This is so obviously absurd to anyone who has seen the footage of tanks crushing unarmed protesters, and has heard the party leadership on TV at the time announcing that what they were doing was right and necessary that your claim is an insult to the readers of this thread. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the types of claims you are making are not even made by the Chinese state media, mainly because they know no one would believe them.
Your argument about religion is simply wrong... people may prcatice their religion, even in Tibet. -- again, you are making claims which even the Chinese government doesn't make. Remember that this very year, a Hong Kong business man was arrested and threatened with death for the `crime' of bringing a suitcase of bibles into China proper. He was given a lighter sentence after the international community objected, but tens of thousands of Chinese who are not noticed by the international community are tortured and killed each year for daring to practice the `wrong' religion. But you give your own game away when you say ``The prists are restricted as they work political and not only do pray'' for this is tyranny outright, and no people should accept for their government to outlaw political speech.
I personaly consider freedom VERY important. However in the first post I pointed out that there a things which are FAR MORE important than freedom. -- maybe the people of China feel this way, and maybe they don't, but why do you get to decide for them? Indeed, if you are so sure that this is what is important to the people of China, why not let them vote on the matter? You dare not, but they are voting, with their feet. Each year, hundreds of thousands of Chinese risk their lives to sneak out of China and flee to nations where they can have freedom. So maybe they don't like the choice you've made for them after all...
And this is the heart of the matter. The system the Chinese have right now is imposed on them through brutality, through fear, through state intervention in every aspect of life. Maybe the Chinese would believe in what you believe without these things, but as long as they are held in chains, it makes no sense at all to speak of them having `freedoms', or of them considering this system `good' or `more important' -- for they are not allowed to have any say in the matter whatsoever.
Re:China goes to the moon, go for it china!
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 0
Well, I'd like to speak to some of these points
Surely the freedom of religion exists. Nevertheless it is restricted -- what does that mean, though? If the Chinese have `freedom' of religion only if they practice a government-endorsed religion, and only if they attend a government-run church, how can you call that `freedom of religion' at all? These are not `restrictions', this is tyranny.
Tianenmen -- actually, a number of news sources have documented that the command for the massacre at Tianenmen came from the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party. Maybe it will never be clear to you what happened there, but to those who have seen the copious news footage of the massacre, or heard the numerous first-person accounts, there can be no doubt.
`freedoms' the Chinese do have -- `free' health care doesn't tell us anything. You get free healthcare in jail too, but we don't call jail `free'. Don't confuse `free beer' with `free speech', please.
In China you can descide where you like to live as in your country.... Usualy (emphasis mine) you are not forced to leave place... Yes, tehy have restrictions where to go to, especialy if you like to get out of it. -- that's funny. If China is so free, and nice, why do they have to have restrictions against people leaving?
Tibet... People live better now than they did before China invaded it. -- sure, if they don't want to practice the religion they had before being invaded, or live in the homes were taken from them and given to party members, or exercise free speech, or travel, or... come to think of it, that's not really `better' now, is it?
All over the world are restrictions on what is allowed to be published: e.g. in germany child porn is illegal. -- sure. kiddy porn, political dissent, they're just the same, man. No, they aren't.
Please don't assume that because you don't consider freedom very important, Chinese and Tibetans don't. Please don't pretend that the system in the US is `just like' the system in China. There is a world of difference between liberty and tyranny, please do not pretend that there is any doubt which is better.
<sarcasm>Now, now, we all know that the Constitution is a `living document' which must be reinterpreted in the spirit of `evolved intent' to meet the needs of the current time...</sarcasm>
In all seriousness, the fact that a congresswoman could look at the Constitution and think that the above statement was in line with it is a perfect example of why we must stick with a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, i.e. one based on what the founders actually meant, not on a reinterpretation of the text to fit the times.
IMO, any other approach leads to the above -- to the Constitution coming to mean whatever view is popular in congress or the courts that particular day...
I think Gaccm was refering to putting pressure on congress through these means -- to see that they exercise their constitutional authority over copyright protection to make things better, not worse.
You are, of course, quite right that the SCOTUS is appointed for life exactly so they won't be subject to political pressure. The constitution provides another means of public control of the court, as it is the elected president who appoints new members, with congress' `advice and consent'.
Considering that there was nothing but coastal states when the constitution was drafted, that seems unlikely.;)
Indeed. At the time, of course, the conflict was between the larger and smaller states of the Atlantic seaboard.
By the way, just to set the record straight, the only reason Bush "won" the electoral vote was because the supreme court stopped the count while he was still ahead.
This was arguably still possible to claim in the spring of 2001. However, any number of recounts have been done since then, all reaching the same result: By every counting method which was considered in any of the court cases or called for by Gore's campaign, Bush won. By almost all methods, he won by more than the current official tally.
And it's worth pointing out that many of these recounts were done by groups (The New York Times, Chicago University) which openly entered the counting process with the contention that Gore had won, and accepted the truth after completing their own counts.
If you want to get into a discussion over why the Constitution requires that the Supreme Court do what it did, we can go there too, I suppose, but I think it's clear from a plain reading (hint: state's policies for federal elections are placed not in the hands of all branches of the state government, but explicitly and solely in the hands of the state legislature -- see Article II, Section I: ``in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct'')
You're close, but off by a few decades. Laffer was a senior advisor of president Kennedy, who was a strong believer in cutting taxes to increase tax revenue, as were Reagan and Bush Jr. after him (and just about no one in between, from either party).
The Laffer curve actually worked quite well as a predictor in both Kennedy's time (where much of the increased revenue went to build Johnson's `Great Society') and in Reagan's time (where the increased revenue brought us from talk of `eternal' budget deficits to a budget surplus in just a decade and a half).
Likewise -- a good discussion of the issues, without the flamage which often comes into these discussions (except for the whole thing being modded down as `flamebait'; go figure:-) )
After Reagan then Bush the economy was shit. -- actually, Bush inherited an incredibly strong economy and squandered it. Even his mini-recession (remember it's a 9 month period we're talking about) couldn't put a permanent crimp in the economy he inherited.
NASA, MediCare -- except that the Medicare system is broke, and all the interesting space work is being done in the private sector by people like Bob Zubrin.
A perfect example is the Energy market in California -- that's a whole other can of worms, which I won't go into right now. Suffice to say that there is still serious disagreement among serious economists over whether California's problems resulted from too little government involvement (so-called `deregulation') or too much (deregulating prices but prohibiting contracts, thus tying prices to the spot market, an environmental impact study process so over-regulated that no new power generation capability had been built through 20 years of growth
Finally, some more thoughts on growth and taxation. First off, I consider your ideas of moving to consumption- rather than income- based taxation to be largely on base. In particular, consumption-based taxation systems are inherently self-regulating, because when taxes go up, consumption goes down. This makes raising taxes much more obviously unprofitable than in the current system.
In practice, there is such a feedback loop at work with income taxation, as pointed out by people like Arthur Laffer in his famous `Laffer Curve', but it's much less obvious than in a consumption-taxation system.
We do disagree on whether to strengthen the federal government over local governments, though -- I feel that this is a terrible idea, and also very far from what our Founders intended.
I should have specified that these are adjusted numbers. If you have any doubt of what a difference these years of growth have made in American society, look at the percentage of Americans who have cars, refrigerators, and other commodities which are just assumed today vs. the 1950's. And this holds true at all levels of society.
So cutting taxes and running deficit is somehow better than the govt not borrowing from people to fund necessary activities -- I'm all for deficit reduction, but it's my considered opinion that the quickest way to get there is to reduce spending. If we allow spending to drive revenue needs instead of allowing revenue to drive spending, we will always be increasing the tax burden, to little effect.
My boss doesn't even bitch about the 1 to 2 million in taxes he pays yearly because it means he is making money -- this may be true, but is it not also true that if he were paying less in taxes, much of that money would be going into new hiring, research and development, and growing his business? Or into paying you and his other employees more?
How about after Bush Version 1.0 left office (when a college guy couldn't find a fucking job at Taco Bell for christs sake). -- a perfect example; remember that for all his talk, Bush Sr. raised taxes, a fact which greatly upset many of his supporters.
Show me anything in private industry that can match the goverment in providing for the people -- well, I think what we can see in the private sector is the engine which produces general economic growth. And it's general economic growth, not social programs which have made it so that the bottom 20% of American society earns, has, and consumes more than the middle 20% did in the 50's.
Actually a properly implemented system of socialism brings everyone up to the same level (see Sweden). -- I think Sweden is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about. See
this story for a report on what these policies have done to Sweden. In short, Swedes are poorer off than any state or any ethnic group in the US. That's Socialism in action...
An interesting assessment. I agree, mostly, with your take on Powell, though I have to say that he's miles beyond Albright (who has made several speeches during the course of this war suggesting that the government is doing too much, not too little).
On the other hand, I've been quite happy with Rice's performance, and with that of Rumsfeld (whom you didn't find anything to say about).
As to OBL, I'm much more concerned with the job we've done on the infrastructure which made 9/11 possible than I am with any particular individual who's out there. Find only Bin Laden, and someone will take his place. Crush the al Qaeda infrastructure, and with or without Bin Laden the world will be a lot safer.
BTW, I assume by your slam on Bush's NG service that you have done more? Or would that not be a safe assumption?
Well you spent enough time on other right-wing rubbish so you might as well have given us your skewed view on economics.
It's comments like this that leave one with the impression that leftism is much less a reasoned system of beliefs than it is a religious movement. The fact that many on the left are willing to dismiss and insult opposing viewpoints rather than disagree with them civilly does not bode well for the future of civil discourse in this country and the world.
In Europe they generally use taxes to support such things as the health service - which helps ALL members of society...
Except that it doesn't. Instead it results in things like France's 12% (!) unemployment rate, or the crime waves which have made Paris in London each significantly more dangerous than New York for the last half decade or so.
To pick an example, were Sweden, which is often praised by the left for it's high tax rates and massive social welfare programs, to become the 51st state of the US, it would not only be the state with the poorest standard of living in the US, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the group with the poorest standard of living -- see
here for details.
Read up on Public Finance and derived benefit from public goods. Then come talk. -- actually I'd suggest you read some more serious economic texts than you appear to have received in your undergraduate education. Read some Milton Friedman, some Arthur Laffer, and so forth, and you'll see that most serious economists agree that reducing taxes is a very effective way to stimulate growth. And growth means a better standard of living at all levels of society.
my father makes around 900k to 1200k per year -- so perhaps it is you who are not acquainted with the huge tax burden placed on the rich and the upper middle class in this country. In actual fact, as documented
here and elsewhere, the upper middle class and rich in America pay an amount in taxes that is completely disproportionate to what they earn or have.
The way to help is to bring those needing help to the level of those not. -- unfortunately, the effect of all attempts at doing so over the last 200+ years has been to bring everyone down into poverty. In contrast, one thing capitalism has done really well is to raise everyone's level. As a perfect example, the bottom 20% of American society currently earns, has, and consumes as much as the middle 20% did in the 1950's, an era generally remembered for it's prosperity. No other system has ever provided growth like that.
Bush only won the electorate not the popular vote. -- which is a fancy way of saying `I think the (rich, generally left-leaning) large coastal states should get to decide who the new president is single handedly'. Our founding fathers felt differently, and thus established the electoral college to ensure that a candidate would need a broad base of support and not just the popular vote to become president.
Give the rich a unnecessary tax cut -- we probably don't have time to go into the economics of why cutting taxes creates more jobs, and thus helps people at all levels of society, but I would like to point out that far from being solely a Republican idea, this fact was well recognized by JFK, who pushed his tax-cut in very similar terms to the current round of cuts. As to `for the rich', I suggest you look at the economics of these cuts -- almost all were in areas like the estate tax and middle-income-brackets which the rich don't pay anyway, but which middle class businessmen shoulder the burden of.
As to helping people in need, well we've all seen how the Republican welfare reforms of 1996, which I give Clinton credit for signing, have resulted in more improvement in the number of people getting off welfare and into work than any of the programs of the previous 30 years. Of course, you'll have to decide for yourself whether when you say `help people' you mean `keep them on welfare' or `help them get a job and return to society.' I see the latter as much more helpful.
Luckily, ~ 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans disagree with you.:-)
Sometimes, when I go to bed, I have a nightmare that September 11 and the events thereafter are being handled by a cabinet with William Cohen instead of Donald Rumsfeld, Madeleine Albright instead of Colin Powell, and Sandy Berger instead of Condi Rice. I usually wake up screaming.:-)
Re:China goes to the moon, go for it china!
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 1
And here, `angel'o'sphere' seems to really be heading out into fictional territory. I would like to speak to his claims:
that freedom of religion exists in china -- yet any number of groups and individuals have clearly documented that this is not the case. While the government has established a small number of state-run churches, and membership in these is allowed but frowned upon, any individual attempting to organize worship in their own home or in a non-state-run church is brutally punished.
From the Hong Kong businessman arrested earlier this year and threatened with the death penalty for the `crime' of bringing bibles into China, to the tibetan buddhists tortured and imprisoned in work camps, I doubt anyone who has actually tried to exercise religious freedom in China would agree that such a freedom exists.
the protesters initiated the violence at Tianenmen -- this claim may float within China, where people do not have access to video or news reports of what actually happened at Tianenmen, but too much news footage many first person accounts by too many people agree that the demonstrators were 100% peaceful, and were brutally murdered for the rest of the world to tolerate slanders like that which `angel'o'sphere' is trying to push with this claim.
a one party system is `just like' a democracy -- to state the obvious, it is of course in no way true that even within the Chinese Communist Party do Chinese citizens get to choose their leaders. But more to the point, to see `no big difference' between a system where the perpetual rulership of one party is established by law and a system where anyone may vote for anyone they wish, and parties come and go, having no status under law, is absurd.
From there, `angel'o'sphere' attempts to suggest that there are no other rights which a US citizen has which a chinese citizen has not, so I'd like to point out a few more (I could go on all day, of course):
the right to a trial by jury held in accordance with the rule of law if I am accused of a crime
the right to live where I like (including entering and exiting my country at will) and work where I like
the right to publish what I like when I like on my web site, on this web site, or anywhere else I can without worrying that I will be locked up for my views
Re:China goes to the moon, go for it china!
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 1
No, thats your interpretation, I did not say that. I said that China has certain problems the USA had not at 1776.
Notably, a totalitarian government which will roll tanks over people to prevent democratic reforms. But to you this basic freedom (not being shot for wanting a little freedom) is less important than `other needs'.
The problem, of course, is that these `other needs' are defined by a few old men in Beijing who wish to hold onto power, and thus they will always be `more important' than freedom and democracy. Mind you, the people of China have never been consulted as to which they find `more important'.
As to basic rights which I (living in the USA) have which those in China do not, here are a few:
The right to belong to any religion I want, without being tortured or locked up in a labor camp for not belonging to the one state-run version of whatever religion I choose
The right to criticize or protest against my government without having said government attack me or run tanks over me
The right to vote and select my leaders
to name just three. There are of course many more I could think of. And those are rights. There are of course many other advantages to living in the US vs. living in China.
That's why millions of Chinese have come to the US, but you never see stories of Americans (or anyone else, save North Koreans, who have it even worse) trying to smuggle themselves into China.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem I see with this statement is that in the current war it was people from `far away' who came to us on September 11. Now we can either go `far away' and destroy the infrastructure which made September 11 possible, or we can sit on our asses and wait for them to attack again. And in the modern world of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, that next attack could be much more deadly than September 11 was.
So, while I disagree with your general characterization of why and when the US has gone to war in the past, and while, unlike you, I have a great deal of respect for those who are all over the world putting their lives at risk so we can sit here and have this debate, I would argue that even if we accept your premises, we should still be overseas right now, and we should still be thankful to the young men (and women) standing in harm's way for us.
That may be, but I have to say that I think the dig about `Invade Iraq to increase approval ratings' was rather offensive.
We may indeed be going into Iraq, and we all know there are perfectly good reasons to do so. To pretend it has anything to do with approval ratings is silly, though.
Thought for the day:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that games shouldn't contain advertising? Or that military advertising is somehow worse than product advertising?
Again, to return to a few basic points here:
- YOU pretent. YOU pretent that YOU know how it was on Tianenmen. -- on the contrary, you have in the course of this conversation asserted not only that the violence at Tianenmen was caused by the protesters attacking the military, not vice versa, and that at any rate if there was violence on the part of the military, it was by individual soldiers on the scene and was not ordered by anyone at any higher level. This is so obviously absurd to anyone who has seen the footage of tanks crushing unarmed protesters, and has heard the party leadership on TV at the time announcing that what they were doing was right and necessary that your claim is an insult to the readers of this thread. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the types of claims you are making are not even made by the Chinese state media, mainly because they know no one would believe them.
- Your argument about religion is simply wrong
... people may prcatice their religion, even in Tibet. -- again, you are making claims which even the Chinese government doesn't make. Remember that this very year, a Hong Kong business man was arrested and threatened with death for the `crime' of bringing a suitcase of bibles into China proper. He was given a lighter sentence after the international community objected, but tens of thousands of Chinese who are not noticed by the international community are tortured and killed each year for daring to practice the `wrong' religion. But you give your own game away when you say ``The prists are restricted as they work political and not only do pray'' for this is tyranny outright, and no people should accept for their government to outlaw political speech.
- I personaly consider freedom VERY important. However in the first post I pointed out that there a things which are FAR MORE important than freedom. -- maybe the people of China feel this way, and maybe they don't, but why do you get to decide for them? Indeed, if you are so sure that this is what is important to the people of China, why not let them vote on the matter? You dare not, but they are voting, with their feet. Each year, hundreds of thousands of Chinese risk their lives to sneak out of China and flee to nations where they can have freedom. So maybe they don't like the choice you've made for them after all...
And this is the heart of the matter. The system the Chinese have right now is imposed on them through brutality, through fear, through state intervention in every aspect of life. Maybe the Chinese would believe in what you believe without these things, but as long as they are held in chains, it makes no sense at all to speak of them having `freedoms', or of them considering this system `good' or `more important' -- for they are not allowed to have any say in the matter whatsoever.Well, I'd like to speak to some of these points
- Surely the freedom of religion exists. Nevertheless it is restricted -- what does that mean, though? If the Chinese have `freedom' of religion only if they practice a government-endorsed religion, and only if they attend a government-run church, how can you call that `freedom of religion' at all? These are not `restrictions', this is tyranny.
- Tianenmen -- actually, a number of news sources have documented that the command for the massacre at Tianenmen came from the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party. Maybe it will never be clear to you what happened there, but to those who have seen the copious news footage of the massacre, or heard the numerous first-person accounts, there can be no doubt.
- `freedoms' the Chinese do have -- `free' health care doesn't tell us anything. You get free healthcare in jail too, but we don't call jail `free'. Don't confuse `free beer' with `free speech', please.
- In China you can descide where you like to live as in your country.... Usualy (emphasis mine) you are not forced to leave place... Yes, tehy have restrictions where to go to, especialy if you like to get out of it. -- that's funny. If China is so free, and nice, why do they have to have restrictions against people leaving?
- Tibet... People live better now than they did before China invaded it. -- sure, if they don't want to practice the religion they had before being invaded, or live in the homes were taken from them and given to party members, or exercise free speech, or travel, or... come to think of it, that's not really `better' now, is it?
- All over the world are restrictions on what is allowed to be published: e.g. in germany child porn is illegal. -- sure. kiddy porn, political dissent, they're just the same, man. No, they aren't.
Please don't assume that because you don't consider freedom very important, Chinese and Tibetans don't. Please don't pretend that the system in the US is `just like' the system in China. There is a world of difference between liberty and tyranny, please do not pretend that there is any doubt which is better.<sarcasm>Now, now, we all know that the Constitution is a `living document' which must be reinterpreted in the spirit of `evolved intent' to meet the needs of the current time...</sarcasm>
In all seriousness, the fact that a congresswoman could look at the Constitution and think that the above statement was in line with it is a perfect example of why we must stick with a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, i.e. one based on what the founders actually meant, not on a reinterpretation of the text to fit the times.
IMO, any other approach leads to the above -- to the Constitution coming to mean whatever view is popular in congress or the courts that particular day...
I think Gaccm was refering to putting pressure on congress through these means -- to see that they exercise their constitutional authority over copyright protection to make things better, not worse.
You are, of course, quite right that the SCOTUS is appointed for life exactly so they won't be subject to political pressure. The constitution provides another means of public control of the court, as it is the elected president who appoints new members, with congress' `advice and consent'.
So get out there and make those calls / write those letters / send those faxes!
If you don't know who your senators and congressman are, or don't know how to reach them, you can lookup by zip code at:
Considering that there was nothing but coastal states when the constitution was drafted, that seems unlikely. ;)
Indeed. At the time, of course, the conflict was between the larger and smaller states of the Atlantic seaboard.
By the way, just to set the record straight, the only reason Bush "won" the electoral vote was because the supreme court stopped the count while he was still ahead.
This was arguably still possible to claim in the spring of 2001. However, any number of recounts have been done since then, all reaching the same result: By every counting method which was considered in any of the court cases or called for by Gore's campaign, Bush won. By almost all methods, he won by more than the current official tally.
And it's worth pointing out that many of these recounts were done by groups (The New York Times, Chicago University) which openly entered the counting process with the contention that Gore had won, and accepted the truth after completing their own counts.
If you want to get into a discussion over why the Constitution requires that the Supreme Court do what it did, we can go there too, I suppose, but I think it's clear from a plain reading (hint: state's policies for federal elections are placed not in the hands of all branches of the state government, but explicitly and solely in the hands of the state legislature -- see Article II, Section I: ``in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct'')
You're close, but off by a few decades. Laffer was a senior advisor of president Kennedy, who was a strong believer in cutting taxes to increase tax revenue, as were Reagan and Bush Jr. after him (and just about no one in between, from either party).
The Laffer curve actually worked quite well as a predictor in both Kennedy's time (where much of the increased revenue went to build Johnson's `Great Society') and in Reagan's time (where the increased revenue brought us from talk of `eternal' budget deficits to a budget surplus in just a decade and a half).
Likewise -- a good discussion of the issues, without the flamage which often comes into these discussions (except for the whole thing being modded down as `flamebait'; go figure :-) )
Which doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one, of course.
Please don't assume that freedom and liberty are things which only Americans value.
After Reagan then Bush the economy was shit. -- actually, Bush inherited an incredibly strong economy and squandered it. Even his mini-recession (remember it's a 9 month period we're talking about) couldn't put a permanent crimp in the economy he inherited.
NASA, MediCare -- except that the Medicare system is broke, and all the interesting space work is being done in the private sector by people like Bob Zubrin.
A perfect example is the Energy market in California -- that's a whole other can of worms, which I won't go into right now. Suffice to say that there is still serious disagreement among serious economists over whether California's problems resulted from too little government involvement (so-called `deregulation') or too much (deregulating prices but prohibiting contracts, thus tying prices to the spot market, an environmental impact study process so over-regulated that no new power generation capability had been built through 20 years of growth
Finally, some more thoughts on growth and taxation. First off, I consider your ideas of moving to consumption- rather than income- based taxation to be largely on base. In particular, consumption-based taxation systems are inherently self-regulating, because when taxes go up, consumption goes down. This makes raising taxes much more obviously unprofitable than in the current system.
In practice, there is such a feedback loop at work with income taxation, as pointed out by people like Arthur Laffer in his famous `Laffer Curve', but it's much less obvious than in a consumption-taxation system.
We do disagree on whether to strengthen the federal government over local governments, though -- I feel that this is a terrible idea, and also very far from what our Founders intended.
I should have specified that these are adjusted numbers. If you have any doubt of what a difference these years of growth have made in American society, look at the percentage of Americans who have cars, refrigerators, and other commodities which are just assumed today vs. the 1950's. And this holds true at all levels of society.
So cutting taxes and running deficit is somehow better than the govt not borrowing from people to fund necessary activities -- I'm all for deficit reduction, but it's my considered opinion that the quickest way to get there is to reduce spending. If we allow spending to drive revenue needs instead of allowing revenue to drive spending, we will always be increasing the tax burden, to little effect.
My boss doesn't even bitch about the 1 to 2 million in taxes he pays yearly because it means he is making money -- this may be true, but is it not also true that if he were paying less in taxes, much of that money would be going into new hiring, research and development, and growing his business? Or into paying you and his other employees more?
How about after Bush Version 1.0 left office (when a college guy couldn't find a fucking job at Taco Bell for christs sake). -- a perfect example; remember that for all his talk, Bush Sr. raised taxes, a fact which greatly upset many of his supporters.
Show me anything in private industry that can match the goverment in providing for the people -- well, I think what we can see in the private sector is the engine which produces general economic growth. And it's general economic growth, not social programs which have made it so that the bottom 20% of American society earns, has, and consumes more than the middle 20% did in the 50's.
Actually a properly implemented system of socialism brings everyone up to the same level (see Sweden). -- I think Sweden is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about. See this story for a report on what these policies have done to Sweden. In short, Swedes are poorer off than any state or any ethnic group in the US. That's Socialism in action...
I find it amusing that posting `George Bush sucks' is not modded either way, but posting `I disagree' gets a mod as `Flamebait'.
Let it never be said that /. moderators do not as a whole enforce a particular viewpoint.
An interesting assessment. I agree, mostly, with your take on Powell, though I have to say that he's miles beyond Albright (who has made several speeches during the course of this war suggesting that the government is doing too much, not too little).
On the other hand, I've been quite happy with Rice's performance, and with that of Rumsfeld (whom you didn't find anything to say about).
As to OBL, I'm much more concerned with the job we've done on the infrastructure which made 9/11 possible than I am with any particular individual who's out there. Find only Bin Laden, and someone will take his place. Crush the al Qaeda infrastructure, and with or without Bin Laden the world will be a lot safer.
BTW, I assume by your slam on Bush's NG service that you have done more? Or would that not be a safe assumption?
Well you spent enough time on other right-wing rubbish so you might as well have given us your skewed view on economics.
It's comments like this that leave one with the impression that leftism is much less a reasoned system of beliefs than it is a religious movement. The fact that many on the left are willing to dismiss and insult opposing viewpoints rather than disagree with them civilly does not bode well for the future of civil discourse in this country and the world.
In Europe they generally use taxes to support such things as the health service - which helps ALL members of society...
Except that it doesn't. Instead it results in things like France's 12% (!) unemployment rate, or the crime waves which have made Paris in London each significantly more dangerous than New York for the last half decade or so.
To pick an example, were Sweden, which is often praised by the left for it's high tax rates and massive social welfare programs, to become the 51st state of the US, it would not only be the state with the poorest standard of living in the US, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the group with the poorest standard of living -- see here for details.
Again, just to reply to a few points here:
Read up on Public Finance and derived benefit from public goods. Then come talk. -- actually I'd suggest you read some more serious economic texts than you appear to have received in your undergraduate education. Read some Milton Friedman, some Arthur Laffer, and so forth, and you'll see that most serious economists agree that reducing taxes is a very effective way to stimulate growth. And growth means a better standard of living at all levels of society.
my father makes around 900k to 1200k per year -- so perhaps it is you who are not acquainted with the huge tax burden placed on the rich and the upper middle class in this country. In actual fact, as documented here and elsewhere, the upper middle class and rich in America pay an amount in taxes that is completely disproportionate to what they earn or have.
The way to help is to bring those needing help to the level of those not. -- unfortunately, the effect of all attempts at doing so over the last 200+ years has been to bring everyone down into poverty. In contrast, one thing capitalism has done really well is to raise everyone's level. As a perfect example, the bottom 20% of American society currently earns, has, and consumes as much as the middle 20% did in the 1950's, an era generally remembered for it's prosperity. No other system has ever provided growth like that.
Well, I'd like to speak to a few points here:
Bush only won the electorate not the popular vote. -- which is a fancy way of saying `I think the (rich, generally left-leaning) large coastal states should get to decide who the new president is single handedly'. Our founding fathers felt differently, and thus established the electoral college to ensure that a candidate would need a broad base of support and not just the popular vote to become president.
Give the rich a unnecessary tax cut -- we probably don't have time to go into the economics of why cutting taxes creates more jobs, and thus helps people at all levels of society, but I would like to point out that far from being solely a Republican idea, this fact was well recognized by JFK, who pushed his tax-cut in very similar terms to the current round of cuts. As to `for the rich', I suggest you look at the economics of these cuts -- almost all were in areas like the estate tax and middle-income-brackets which the rich don't pay anyway, but which middle class businessmen shoulder the burden of.
As to helping people in need, well we've all seen how the Republican welfare reforms of 1996, which I give Clinton credit for signing, have resulted in more improvement in the number of people getting off welfare and into work than any of the programs of the previous 30 years. Of course, you'll have to decide for yourself whether when you say `help people' you mean `keep them on welfare' or `help them get a job and return to society.' I see the latter as much more helpful.
Luckily, ~ 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans disagree with you. :-)
Sometimes, when I go to bed, I have a nightmare that September 11 and the events thereafter are being handled by a cabinet with William Cohen instead of Donald Rumsfeld, Madeleine Albright instead of Colin Powell, and Sandy Berger instead of Condi Rice. I usually wake up screaming. :-)
- that freedom of religion exists in china -- yet any number of groups and individuals have clearly documented that this is not the case. While the government has established a small number of state-run churches, and membership in these is allowed but frowned upon, any individual attempting to organize worship in their own home or in a non-state-run church is brutally punished.
From the Hong Kong businessman arrested earlier this year and threatened with the death penalty for the `crime' of bringing bibles into China, to the tibetan buddhists tortured and imprisoned in work camps, I doubt anyone who has actually tried to exercise religious freedom in China would agree that such a freedom exists.
- the protesters initiated the violence at Tianenmen -- this claim may float within China, where people do not have access to video or news reports of what actually happened at Tianenmen, but too much news footage many first person accounts by too many people agree that the demonstrators were 100% peaceful, and were brutally murdered for the rest of the world to tolerate slanders like that which `angel'o'sphere' is trying to push with this claim.
- a one party system is `just like' a democracy -- to state the obvious, it is of course in no way true that even within the Chinese Communist Party do Chinese citizens get to choose their leaders. But more to the point, to see `no big difference' between a system where the perpetual rulership of one party is established by law and a system where anyone may vote for anyone they wish, and parties come and go, having no status under law, is absurd.
From there, `angel'o'sphere' attempts to suggest that there are no other rights which a US citizen has which a chinese citizen has not, so I'd like to point out a few more (I could go on all day, of course):- The right to belong to any religion I want, without being tortured or locked up in a labor camp for not belonging to the one state-run version of whatever religion I choose
- The right to criticize or protest against my government without having said government attack me or run tanks over me
- The right to vote and select my leaders
to name just three. There are of course many more I could think of. And those are rights. There are of course many other advantages to living in the US vs. living in China. That's why millions of Chinese have come to the US, but you never see stories of Americans (or anyone else, save North Koreans, who have it even worse) trying to smuggle themselves into China.