Egotistical of you to assume that my "feelings" would be in any manner determined by what you say, or do not........I deal in facts not "feelings", and calling a point "moot", is not a rebuttal, it is a tactic utilized to avoid discussion of a fact. Perhaps a different approach would be for you to actually define what you consider "liberal" taxation (beyond, of course, the old, tired, soak the rich to hand to the "poor", or what I refer to as the "Robin Hood" syndrome). So elucidate please, what is your preferred form of taxation?
It appears the irony of my salutation escaped you. Ah, well. If you insist on engaging in a discussion that I consider moot (progressive taxation, which isn't going to happen any time soon), then I will indulge you. Your description, while obviously derrogatory, is essentially apt. I prefer taxation that re-distributes wealth downward in the social strata. This is necessary because in an unregulated capitalist society, wealth naturally flows upward. Progressive taxation serves to counter-balance this natural tendency.
The highlighted portion indicates to me that you are too politically naive to actually have a firm grasp on what Obama's politics actually are........or for that matter, what conservatism actually is........which rather places me at a disadvantage, since it is difficult to debate someone who has no grasp of the subject, and it is becoming rather clear that you have no clue as to what conservatives actually believe, or for that matter, what the current manifestation of liberal/progressive/democrat believes. Not that it really matters, but it is sort of a waste of my time, and yours, which, as you alluded, could be better spent with your family, than here.
Do you feel better? The insults aren't really useful, are they?
And "liberals" love to point to the fact that the poor pay a larger percentage of their relative incomes in taxation than those with more wealth, which is really a strawman argument. Who cares? When it comes to the basic concept of taxation what percentage of one's income is actually paid isn't really the issue. The issue regarding taxation is how it must properly and Constitutionally be spent.
I think that how the money is collected is extremely important too. How it is spent is another subject altogether.
An "origionalist" like myself will argue that you will find NOTHING in our founding documents, nor in any of the collective writings of the founders that supports the argument that a welfare state should should ever be considered a part of our country (please don't insult me with the "General Welfare clause"), as both you and I know that is now, and never was intended to convey the right to food, housing, health care, or a "living wage" to the citizenry, at the point of the tax collector's gun.
I fully admit that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to legislate for the general welfare. States have that right, of course, but the federal government does not (or, to be more precise,
did not have that right originally). It's clear, however, that, through the commerce clause, the Federal government has expanded its power to legislate for the general welfare (for better or for worse).
The fact is that the Constitution means
only what the Supreme Court says it means. This was one of the most shocking things that I learned in law school, but it makes sense when one thinks about it. Take the old Soviet Constitution. It guaranteed a plethora of rights and freedoms to the Soviet people. But did the people really have those rights and freedoms? No. Why? Because the Soviet Courts would not enforce the document. Our Constitution works the same way. We have only the rights and freedoms that the Courts, in interpreting that document, give us. By the same token, the Federal government is limited by that document only to the extent that the Supreme Court is willing to limit the government. Congress can pass any law it wants. Whether that law is "unconstitutional" is for the Court to decide. So far, it appears, the Supreme Court has allowed a good bit of "general welfare" legislation, again, for better or for worse.
FDR created a lot of nice National Parks, and built a few roads, but any reasonable economist will advise you that his economic policies in general did far more to prolong the depression, than they did to improve the situation. In reality, our entry into WW II is the single most significant factor in placing the country on the road to recovery during the period, which, by the way, FDR fought tooth and nail, and if it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor, he would have likely slowed the economic recovery well into the '50's.
I think your "reasonable economists" are dead wqrong. FDR didn't do
enough to stimulate the economy in his early years. That much is true. I fully agree that it was WWII that pulled us out of the depression. Why? Because of the massive federal money spent to fight the war (millions of jobs created--tons of federal spending, and defecit spending too). That's just what we need now to pull us out of this depression, though I'd prefer to spend money on bridges rather than bombs.
Putting a few dollars into the hands of the "poor" will do nothing to stimulate the economy, and putting more than a "few" dollars into their hands is simply irresponsible.......as by definition, if they had any capability to manage their financial affairs, they would not be "poor" to begin with.
The money will percolate upwards. I could care less if it's responsible. If the poor have money, they will spend it. In the end, that will churn the economy and make us all richer. Supply-side economics is bunk.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0Becoming isolationist, and failing to take advantage of free international trade will never accomplish the goal of recovery, as you cannot put the "genie" back in the proverbrial bottle. People want goods and services that are priced reasonably, and that will not happen here with our union/regulatory environment. Now if you are open to changing that.....THEN we can have a discussion. To that point, it appears that your grasp of economics is similiar to your grasp of fundamental politics.
Organized labor allowed the creation of the American middle class. As such, the Republican Party has been trying to destroy organized labor for thirty years. Organized labor is nearly dead now. As such the income disparity between the rich and the poor is at its highest point since the gilded age. While I do not favor political or economic isolationism, I also favor good-paying jobs for working-class Americans. And regulated capitalism is absolutely necessary. The Enron gas bubble, the housing bubble, the bank failures, and the gusher in the Gulf are all examples of what happens when capitalism is inadequately regulated.
As for our having a discussion in the future, I make no promises.
-Laelth
