Free-Market Capitalism never loses?

[Lagboltz]

You are arguing that being fiscally responsible is impossible because it will start riots?

I think most conservatives will settle for a balanced budget and lower taxes. There can still be social spending under that system, just not massive wasteful spending that seems to be the trademark of government.

You misread my post. What you are saying is workable in principle. I was referring to Andy's post #18. Which is a more extreme conservative view. He wants to eliminate, Social Security, Medicare, " ...Welfare, Food Stamps, VA Benefits, Unemployment compensation, a host of other hand outs,..."

Andy further states, "Even from a Christian perspective, the Bible states clearly and directly, a man who does not work... should not eat. In other words, you should starve to death."

I am claiming that Andy's type of conservatism may lead to massive social upheaval. I'm glad to see you and hopefully most conservatives are not advocating that level of governmental conservatism.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think we agree, on how we got there. My concerns to the mess is different than yours. I want to know how we can get out. The government seems to be firmly entrenched in the current mode and the people, through voting, are left with voting for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils. We are simply voting for who will be members of the good-old-boys club.

agreed. And I do not think that government could ever get unentrenched left to thier own devices.

Private schools can do what they want. For public schools, theology should be kept out of science classes. I am a scientist and I can't be moved from this opinion.

agreed. I am (was) a scientist too. First in chemistry and then I switched to Clinical Psychology. Yes theology does not belong in science class. Additionally science needs to be taught in a way that admits it is based on certain assumptions one of which being that theological explanations have been ruled out without even being given a hearing.

You are replying to my statement "Capitalism, in principle should be good for all classes but that may be breaking down by govmt mismanagement. etc." I didn't mean to blame capitalism, I meant to say that capitalism, by itself, is not enough to cure excessive poverty in the lowest of classes.

agreed again. Capitalism will not cure all ills. It will encourage all hard workers to work hard. Government keeps them honest through regulation aimed at punishing wrong doing. Charity fills in many of the gaps that are left over. What do we do with the rest? I don't know but I do know that there will at least not be a culture of dependence.

Let me further agree, the "socialism" aspects of government are pampering some, (but not all) of the lower classes in a destructive way. Finally some Liberals may complain about "nasty rich folks", but I am not one of them.

I am beginning to suspect that you are not even a liberal. And with all you know it is a wonder to me that you support progressive taxation.


Major life traumas are one factor. I mentioned several other problems in post, #17, such as old age, single parent households, drug addicts, the nearly insane. To me, removing government programs from these people is acceptable, if there is another solution. I really doubt that compassionate outsiders will be enough to alleviate the problem. The inner cities are just too full of these people who simply cannot work and can't survive without aid.[/QUOTE]

There was a time in this country before government programs existed. Today we are much more technologically advanced, morally advanced, and richer as a country. we should be able to do a better job of taking care of these people than we did before. we didn't do bad before so now it just might be acceptable.

 

[Dr.Who]

That sounds like questions I am asking. I do not have the answers. In post #17 I am turning questions like that around and asking how will a small government more strictly following the constitution solve these problems.

It won't. That is the role of individuals and private groups. Today the US is the most giving country in the world when we add both gov and private donations. Without government aid we would be even more giving. We give to cats. we give to whales. We give to just about any cause you can name. In the absence of any evidence that without government enablement that people would be left to starve en masse how can one justify forcing all the population to be taxed at confiscatory rates?

Furthermore, any hardships in the economy hurt the poorest most. We have a moral obligation as a country to make the economy as strong as possible. Taxes taken from the rich in opposition to the intent of our constitution and with the result being that we have lost our checks and balances that protect us all from a tyranny which may arise all come back to burden the poor.

let the gov keep the playing field honest. let us recognize that Smith's invisible hand will be more effective than the hand of congress any day any time in creating an efficient economy.

 

[Dr.Who]

Not at all and I don't want others to impose their moral belief on me.

Which is what a liberal is supposed to believe but most often does not.

You make a number of observations about Christianity, morality, and imposition of one's morality on others. Yes, Christian morality should not be the job of the government to enforce.

neither should other morality.

Again that is my major question.

yes it is. Can we agree that at the very least we should try moral cures before we try immoral cures?

I have been and am still for progressive taxes. You seem to be saying, that is essentially legislating sharing, and forcing morality. Your solution won't happen until there is a massive social realignment outside the government toward the direction of a utopia of generosity. I'm all for it, if it is possible for people to go that way. Christianity is generous in spirit, but not in practice to the extent that would be needed to allow a flat tax and lower government spending.

It need not be utopian, merely greater than it is now and great enough to meet the need. I beleive this is completely reasonable. We could change the tax code so that all charitable giving is rewarded dollar for dollar rather than just being a decrease in the marginal tax rate. Today for a person in the 30% tax bracket every dollar given to charity reduces the tax burden by 30 cents. It would be better for it to reduce the tax burden by one dollar.

What I would feel more comfortable with, is to see the country move toward a substitute way of handling social problems first, then figure out the governments new role in taxation and legislation.

The gov could first reduce the tax burden like I have just listed. Then it could put more of those boxes on the tax form that allow you to decide which charity will get money. It could also do this with other government expenses so that no one would be supporting things they did not want to support.

 

[Dr.Who]

You misread my post. What you are saying is workable in principle. I was referring to Andy's post #18. Which is a more extreme conservative view. He wants to eliminate, Social Security, Medicare, " ...Welfare, Food Stamps, VA Benefits, Unemployment compensation, a host of other hand outs,..."

SS should be phased out.

medicare should be replaced with private insurance, welfare, or nothing as the individual wants.

Welfare should be a last resort only. Only after self reliance, charity, have failed. While we have ss one should borrow against ones own ss before collecting welfare. welfare should be given to voluntarily - put a box on the tax form and you just might find that enough people would give to a system that was practiced wisely.

Food stamps are just a part of welfare and they are an improvement over just giving cash.

VA benefits are compensation for a job performed and gov needs to fulfill its contractual obligation.

unemployement compensation has been paid for by the individual and is eared when claimed. Though forcefully demanding that one buy a particular product is not moral and one wonders if maybe the product is not that good if the one who sells it needs to resort to force.

Andy further states, "Even from a Christian perspective, the Bible states clearly and directly, a man who does not work... should not eat. In other words, you should starve to death."

Maybe Andy realised that the verse in context was only referring to people who were able bodied and capable of work. Do you have an objection to permitting an able bodied man starve to death if he makes that choice? A true liberal would not want to interfere with his liberty to make that choice.

I am claiming that Andy's type of conservatism may lead to massive social upheaval. I'm glad to see you and hopefully most conservatives are not advocating that level of governmental conservatism.

We used to have that kind of conservatism in this country and rather than the country falling apart we were propelled into being a superpower. The transition to that kind of conservatism would be difficult but the actual conservatism would not be.

 

[Andy]

You misread my post. What you are saying is workable in principle. I was referring to Andy's post #18. Which is a more extreme conservative view. He wants to eliminate, Social Security, Medicare, " ...Welfare, Food Stamps, VA Benefits, Unemployment compensation, a host of other hand outs,..."

Andy further states, "Even from a Christian perspective, the Bible states clearly and directly, a man who does not work... should not eat. In other words, you should starve to death."

I am claiming that Andy's type of conservatism may lead to massive social upheaval. I'm glad to see you and hopefully most conservatives are not advocating that level of governmental conservatism.

To clarify, that position is the position of the constitution, and the position of the founding fathers of our country. That position is what brought the US, the youngest country in existence, to become the sole super power over a world filled with countries and nations thousands of years older.

I personally doubt that if it was explained why each program had to be cut, that there would be much social upheaval. Why? Because in mid '90s, welfare was drastically cut. Did people go nuts? No... they went back to work.

But will this happen? Not likely. What will happen instead is we will follow the same path of destruction that other nations have followed. We have too many people more interested in their own selfish and greedy desires, than who care about the long term health of the nation.

We have too many 'Obamas' in office who promise ever increasing hand out, while never actually putting in a full days work for any wage in their life, and thus couldn't care less what is best for the nation. Only what is best for them to get votes.

No what is more likely to happen, is that we will follow the same path as the Romans. The Roman government spent an ever increasing amount of money on public programs. Then when the cost started to out-grow the money coming in, they engaged in heavy taxation. When that still did not bring in enough, they started debasement of the currency, which caused massive inflation. With inflation they introduced price controls, which naturally caused massive food scarcity. This led to riots and increasing crime, plus an uprising. This required military intervention against their own citizens.

Do you see any parallel to today? Ever increasing social spending, removal of the gold standard and inflation, heavy taxation, we have price controls, and price supports are everywhere, and military intervention against citizens could be seen in New Orleans already, so no doubt it will happen again soon. All of these things have happened in the last 40 years.

I'm not sure which fits best: The road to destruction is paved with good intentions, Or, All roads lead to Rome. Either way, we're following the exact same path the Romans followed, straight to destruction.

 

[Lagboltz]

agreed. ...
agreed. ...
agreed again...

Well, at least I don't have spend time to think out a response.

There was a time in this country before government programs existed. Today we are much more technologically advanced, morally advanced, and richer as a country. we should be able to do a better job of taking care of these people than we did before. we didn't do bad before so now it just might be acceptable.

My take on this is that the country initially was largely rural. Individuals could work the land and sustain themselves. Now, with half the population in high density urban areas, more dependence on high tech, and more dependence on energy, the paradigm has changed, and the old rules will not work as well. Society has liberally changed in many ways and conserving the earlier concepts of government has to be reevaluated.

 

[Lagboltz]

.... Taxes taken from the rich in opposition to the intent of our constitution and with the result being that we have lost our checks and balances that protect us all from a tyranny which may arise all come back to burden the poor.

I never understood why the constitution is used to justify lowering taxes and/or the abolition of progressive taxes. Amendment 16 does not rule against that. I thought it was already addressed by the Supreme court in the Brushaber case. "

Even in the short preamble to the constitution it mentions one role of the constitution is to "... promote the general Welfare ...". I'm not arguing that this literally establishes "welfare" in it's current meaning, but it does hint that the constitution does not disallow that type of thing.

 

[Lagboltz]

Can we agree that at the very least we should try moral cures before we try immoral cures?

I don't agree that our current "cure" is immoral. I don't think that it is even unconstitutional either. (See post #38)

It need not be utopian, merely greater than it is now and great enough to meet the need. I beleive this is completely reasonable. We could change the tax code so that all charitable giving is rewarded dollar for dollar rather than just being a decrease in the marginal tax rate. Today for a person in the 30% tax bracket every dollar given to charity reduces the tax burden by 30 cents. It would be better for it to reduce the tax burden by one dollar.

This sounds fine in principle, but it will bring about a lot more 501(c) type charities. There are a lot of these organizations that stretch the limit of the definition of "charity". They will increase advertising, telemarketing and mailings to vie for your money. There would be duplicity in administration costs. The United Way was supposed to help alleviate that problem, but it lead to it's own abuses. This solution would have to be carefully thought out before I would be convinced it would have a chance.

 

[Lagboltz]

You seem to disagree with Andy on a number of things. I don't need to comment on them.

We used to have that kind of conservatism in this country and rather than the country falling apart we were propelled into being a superpower. The transition to that kind of conservatism would be difficult but the actual conservatism would not be.

As I said earlier, that kind of conservatism was arguably valid at the birth of America. In the old days you could farm with oxen, raise animals, can food for the winter, and sell enough to provide money for purchases at the general store. You could survive with energy from the sun and waterwheels. You would not survive if it required more energy than you could get out of your land, crops and animals.

The Amish are still largely that way, but the sprawling urbanization of America has a hard time living by the old rules. Technology has brought a perceived need for lots of tech stuff, and that requires a lot more energy than it used to. Even for necessities: On average today, it requires an energy equivalent of 10 calories to produce one calorie of food -- that includes machinery, fuel, fertilization, irrigation, packaging, refrigeration, transportation, advertising, warehousing, and spoilage. We would have a hard time going back if that becomes necessary because without advanced technology in farming we could not sustain 6 billion people on earth.

 

[Lagboltz]

I'm not sure which fits best: The road to destruction is paved with good intentions, Or, All roads lead to Rome. Either way, we're following the exact same path the Romans followed, straight to destruction.

Maybe A. Toynbee was right. Societies have their day, then fade away. Once there was greatness in many areas on the planet -- Egypt, Persia, Rome, UK, Aztecs, China.... The greatness of the US may not last long. I see the problem not as the Democrats vs. Republicans, or Liberals vs. Conservatives. The problem is the people vs. the government. We won't see a grass roots movement of the people bringing about change if we keep bickering among ourselves, and I don't see any compromise the people are willing to make in the future.

 

[Andy]

I never understood why the constitution is used to justify lowering taxes and/or the abolition of progressive taxes. Amendment 16 does not rule against that. I thought it was already addressed by the Supreme court in the Brushaber case. "

Even in the short preamble to the constitution it mentions one role of the constitution is to "... promote the general Welfare ...". I'm not arguing that this literally establishes "welfare" in it's current meaning, but it does hint that the constitution does not disallow that type of thing.

Because prior to that amendment, the founding fathers had a clear sense of morals that prohibited the taxation of ones income.

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson

Shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned, addresses the idea of income tax. Been awhile since we had a good government.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

I direct prohibition to the social programs I was listing as unconstitutional.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison

I think that speaks for itself.

So, now do you understand why Constitutionalists like me use it to justify lower or elimination of the income tax, and the remove of social programs that have bankrupted our government?

 

[Andy]

Maybe A. Toynbee was right. Societies have their day, then fade away. Once there was greatness in many areas on the planet -- Egypt, Persia, Rome, UK, Aztecs, China.... The greatness of the US may not last long. I see the problem not as the Democrats vs. Republicans, or Liberals vs. Conservatives. The problem is the people vs. the government. We won't see a grass roots movement of the people bringing about change if we keep bickering among ourselves, and I don't see any compromise the people are willing to make in the future.

As long as people are willing to give up their freedoms to get social programs, then the end is inevitable. As long as people keep thinking they can get everything they want from government, and only the rich will pay, there is little hope for a change. At least not good change. As long as we look around the world, and make excuses about successful policies in one country, and instead adopt failing policies from another, then yeah, you are right.

 

[Lagboltz]

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison

I think that speaks for itself.

So, now do you understand why Constitutionalists like me use it to justify lower or elimination of the income tax, and the remove of social programs that have bankrupted our government?

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which disallows the right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - Lagboltz 2008.

 

[Andy]

I don't agree that our current "cure" is immoral. I don't think that it is even unconstitutional either.

I already answered the constitutional position. Here's one more specific to the morality of it.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. " -Thomas Jefferson

It's sinful and tyrannical.