-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Anybody still think the economy has turned the corner?
- Thread starter Bevo16
- Start date
That is the sort of horrible grammar up with which I will not put.
No assumption...just a clarification.
I'm sensing that you're looking at many of these issues in absolutist terms, which I suspect is for the convenience of the arguments you're making (and the general audience here). I prefer to paint from a palette of grays - makes life more...interesting.
Brett
At some point you'll need to stand up for something and paint with black or white. Otherwise, someone else will come along and fuck up your painting.I'm sensing that you're looking at many of these issues in absolutist terms, which I suspect is for the convenience of the arguments you're making (and the general audience here). I prefer to paint from a palette of grays - makes life more...interesting.
Brett
Another black & white perspective. There are more options than "stand up for something" and "stand up for nothing." Perhaps you could consider some of the questions I've directed towards you in this thread as a starting point.
Brett
Brett327 said:
Brett327 said:
Sorry, I did see your questions. I meant to come back to them but forgot. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking me what the alternative is to the current state/size/functions of government? Surely, you don't believe that the majority of the Founders ever envisioned the federal government intruding into our lives as it currently does, do you?Brett327 said:
My major issues are with:
1. The progressive tax system
2. Estate and other inheritance taxes
3. Property taxes
4. Public education system
5. Massive entitlement programs
I have a few qualms with various other measures of control, but these are the big ones for me.
In each of my explanations below, let us recall a founding principle of American government. That is, government derives ALL authority from the people, and because of this, all power rests with and originates from people.
1. Take the progressive tax system. In and of itself, it is fundamentally unfair in the sense that individuals are treated differently by the law based on income levels. What is the logic behind making someone who earns more pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than another person who earns less? Are they not equal in the eyes of the law in every other area? Why should income taxes be any different? I hear all the time how those people who make more are in a better position to pay more in taxes. Really? Says who? The government? Factors such as cost of living have a huge impact on whether someone is in a better position to pay more. Somebody living in New York City or San Diego or even Newport that makes 50K more than me will not be in a better position to pay more than someone like myself who lives in a medium size city in Florida.
Additionally, I am adamantly opposed to forcing payroll deductions each month. I should be able to pay my taxes when they are due. Yes, I know I can elect to have very little deducted each month, but I have to elect that. It should be the other way around. It's no surprise WHY the system is set up the way it is. Let's be honest. How many people actually know how much they paid in income taxes last year? Most will say "nothing" because they got a refund.
Bottom line....current tax system should be abolished, the 16th Amendment should be repealed, and a consumption tax should replace it. I'm not going to get into the Fair Tax in this post. We can discuss that in another thread. I am more than happy to pay my taxes for government functions that are historically best left to the government to perform (i.e. fire, police, military).
2. Estate and other inheritence taxes. Again, wtf? I make money, get taxed. Save and accumulate wealth and then die. Get taxed again. This is a private property issue for me. The government has zero right to it. It belongs to my heirs and only my heirs. Bottom line....estate and other inheritence taxes should be abolished. Consumption tax would also replace the revenue that would be lost by this source.
3. Property tax. Again, another private property issue, not to mention that the amount of tax due is based on the property's value, not size of parcel or square feet occupied. If I pay off my mortgage, I still have to pay property taxes to continue to legally own my home. If I fail to pay property taxes, a lien will be put on my home and possiblly sold to another individual. In effect, I don't REALLY own my property. The government does. And property taxes aren't just for property owners. Renters pay this as well in the form of higher rents, although the amount of tax is considerably lower compared to a homeowner. Bottom line....abolish property taxes (we almost had this happen in Florida a few years ago) and use a county sales tax to replaced the revenue.
4. Public education system. What a joke. Other than completely dissolving the Department of Education and letting free market forces work it out, I don't know what to do. Standards are too low, there's not enough choice (competition), and you still have to pay into the the system even if you have no children in it. There are probably very few people on this board that value education as much as I do. I do not have a problem with public education in and of itself. However, there should be far more choice and far less government intrustion into how it's run. I think this can be better left to each state and/or private organizations such as accrediting bodies.
5. Entitlement programs. Biggest problem I have with these is that I'm forced to contribute into the system even if I don't want them. Bottom line....direct contributions from payroll should be abolished. Revenue would be from the national consumption tax.
Bottom line. I don't mind socialist programs as long as I get to choose if I want to participate in them or not. What's wrong with that? The left believes in free choice don't they? Oh wait. Different topic
While I generally agree philosophically with your five points, if you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd like to talk about them less in terms of what the Founders imagined and more in terms of pragmatism. I know, I know...like I said, indulge me.
There is no doubt that our government and society has strayed from the bare bones government which was established by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For me, the question becomes, what can or should anybody do about it. Like it or not, we are where we are, and I hope that you'd agree that a sudden, radical reversion back to how government worked in the early 19th century would cause complete chaos. Like it or not, people have become dependent on the government - not just in terms of entitlements, but in their expectation that the status quo will continue. So in my view, if we want to move back towards that ideal, you have to do it in a way that won't disrupt people's lives and cause anarchy.
1. Education. It's easy to balk at public education as the bloated, ineffective bureaucracy that it is, but I'll pose you the same question I did earlier. Would you be OK if public education were funded 100% by state and local governments, or are you insisting that we have a 100% privatized system? Is there any precedent in the developed world for such a system? If education is privatized, would you still have K-12 be compulsory? Important issues that I'd be interested in your views.
2. Are you advocating a radical laissez faire approach to our economy where the government has zero regulatory power? If so, would state and local governments have this authority? At what point does one separate the federal government's ability/duty to pass laws which promote the common good from a regulatory agency like the FAA or FCC? I personally think there is a middle ground - the question for me is where the sweet spot might be. Again, interested in your stance here.
3. As for entitlements, you'll get no argument from me that this is one area that all levels of government should seek to extricate themselves. As I'm sure you appreciate though, that switch is kind of hard to turn off once it's on. Unfortunate as that might be, people have to be weaned of the government's teat over generations.
4. Taxes are indeed another mess and while I'm not sure what the idea solution is, consumption does seem the more equitable of the many options. What about state and local though? Would you be opposed to non consumption-based taxing systems if local and state residents approved them by referenda?
Looking forward to your responses.
Brett
Funny you should ask that. I live in an area of Florida in what is affectionately called around here as the People's Socialist Republic of Alachua County. This area is home of the University of Florida, and is located about 60 miles southwest of NAS Jax. This college town is known as being the Berkeley of the east coast in terms of its left leaning tendencies.
Back on 9/12 of this year, my wife went to the rally up in D.C. When she got back, we started looking into what we could do to affect the change at the local, state, and federal levels that we both knew needed to happen. So, we started a tea party organization called Gainesville Tea Party and began recruiting members, starting with family that live in the area. My wife did several radio interviews on the morning and afternoon shows to talk about who the organization was and what it stood for. The response has been outstanding.
As we suspected, the closet conservatives started coming out of the woodwork and contacting us to join the group. Prior to starting the group, I told my wife about a theory I had which was that all the conservatives around here mistakenly think they are outnumbered since the area is controlled by a bunch of liberals. The liberals here have done an outstanding job in making conservatives think they are vastly outnumbered and simply have no power to change anything. From a psyops/deception perspective, it's ingenious.
Not too long ago, we absorbed another organization composed of a large group of conservative business leaders from here in the county that have been trying for a year to get to the point where our organization got in only a couple months.
You asked what can or should be done about government straying from its roots. The bottom line is that those who represent us need to be held accountable because they have chosen to ignore the people they supposedly represent. How you choose to go about doing that is up to you. I'm not the type of person to wait around and wait for someone else to make something happen. Some are better suited to sit on the sidelines and follow, which is great. Those people are needed too. That's just not me though.
Absolutely. I'm not looking to disrupt people's lives. I would just like them to have more choice.Brett327 said:
My wife is a speech pathologist and has worked in three different school districts in three different states (San Diego, Seattle, and here in Gainesville). I did a short stint as a middle school substitute teacher back in 2004 after the first time I got out because I was thinking about becoming a teacher. I do not have an issue with the federal government funding public education so long as 1) standards, testing, and overall control is left in the hands of each state and/or county 2) competition is not limited and 3) it is non mandatory. I think we both know the federal government would never fund public education and leave control to how it is run to the states. So in that regard, I guess we're left with public education being funded by state/local governments, charity, and private contributionsBrett327 said:
No, I'm not advocating that at all. That was the problem with the Articles of Confederation. The central government was weak and had no ability to regulate commerce (i.e. free trade) among the states. In general, I don't think the government should be sticking its nose in as a third party to a contract where two parties are able and willing. Minimum wage is one such animal that interferes with free market forces and ultimately causes an artificial inflation in the price of goods. While there may be a middle ground, you have to realize your middle ground will try to move towards more power in the hands of the government. That's just the nature of government. So while my positions may seem extreme, it's only because I want to slow down the creeping of government control in my life.Brett327 said:
I completely agree. However, I take the position that these programs can be turned off at the same time they are kept on. The kicker is that we would need to move to a national consumption tax (i.e. no income tax, no VAT, no social security tax, no medicare tax, and none of these other bs taxes used specifically for political power). Programs are turned "off" in the sense that you are left to decide how much you want to contribute by way of what you consume.Brett327 said:
At the state level for state and local taxes? Absolutely. One method of taxation in a state/local government may not be what another wants to do However, any income taxes would need to be the same percentage for everyone.Brett327 said:
Random8145
Registered User
I don't know whether the airline unions are good or not, but unions still have a place, just not near what they used to have IMO.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Many unions have become self-serving profit groups in themselves. Their primary interest is the benefit and survival of the union, when they should be looking to benefit the workers. They are short-sighted and block any sort of progress in the company.
Case and point: Supermarket unions. They negotiate inflated salaries and overtime on Sundays + paid holidays for part time workers...food prices go up, stores go out of business when "evil" Walmart comes along who doesn't overpay teenage part-time workers, now the entire Supermarket is out of a job because it goes out of business.
Auto unions also fit in this category. They stimie Ford/GM's efforts to make any sort of progress or restructuring because it'll result in layoffs or reduced salaries, even though in the long run the companies would be in a much better position to hire more people and pay them better salaries if they could turn a profit. If not for the bailout, there wouldn't be a GM anymore...and all those people would be out of a job, period.
Case and point: Supermarket unions. They negotiate inflated salaries and overtime on Sundays + paid holidays for part time workers...food prices go up, stores go out of business when "evil" Walmart comes along who doesn't overpay teenage part-time workers, now the entire Supermarket is out of a job because it goes out of business.
Auto unions also fit in this category. They stimie Ford/GM's efforts to make any sort of progress or restructuring because it'll result in layoffs or reduced salaries, even though in the long run the companies would be in a much better position to hire more people and pay them better salaries if they could turn a profit. If not for the bailout, there wouldn't be a GM anymore...and all those people would be out of a job, period.
All those assets and workers would lay around un-utilized indefinitely? No company would ever move in to utilize those billions in assets, once they go to fire-sale prices? Those would only be true in a politically hostile environment, such as the current one. Restructuring usually results in temporary pains, but supporting political environments that make restructuring almost impossible results in significantly greater pains eventually.
As the UAW boss-dude once said, all current employees could work for free and GM would still be insolvent. He didn't admit that it's the guaranteed legacy costs--the pensions and health care, that make it a racket for its workers (I'll choose not to draw parallels...) and an unsustainable business model.
OK, I get you now. I think both sides of the political spectrum do themselves a collective disservice when they delve into the idyllic extremes of their philosophies rather than speaking in terms of realistic incremental strategies to move the country one way or another because the opposition then identifies their political counterparts as extremists and subsequently dismisses everything the other says. Although it's difficult to measure or define precisely, our nation is fairly divided on a host of issues at this point in history, and the only way to move forward in a manner where both sides can have their objectives met is through mutual respect and compromise.
I hope that you'd agree with me that our Nation's collective interests ought to be the agenda that our politicians and representatives in government are working toward. To that end, any radical change in the status quo is probably contrary to that oftentimes delicate balance.
So, while we're not likely to see a return to our early 19th century approach to government, we're also not going to see the kind of socialism as practiced by Sweden, Venezuela or even Spain.
Brett
Random8145
Registered User
Only part I would disagree with you is on the compromise part. IMO, the only way to get the objectives met that make sense are to stonewall, and then smash through the opponents and flatten them. The Left want more gun control, government healthcare, universal college, various other entitlements, carbon regulations, no off-shore oil drilling, higher taxes, etc...to which I say no, no, no, no, no, no, and no...there is little to no compromise on these issues as I see it. Such compromise only leads to moving more and more to the Left.
For example, the Left say, "We just want a little more regulation, or a little more gun control, or slightly higher taxes, or slightly more entitlements, etc..." then repeat year after year.