Albany, NY. TWCable, Channel 3,7PM: Cornell vs. RPI.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages1
#2
Greg -
See we took it on the chin last night. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from here!
Anyway, I wanted to try again with the post I put up yesterday.
You asked, "Does that mean exempting women and the elderly from combat opts them out of responsiblity?"
Yes it does, as far as responsibility for evaluating the consequences of war goes. If you don't believe me, ask Charley Rangel. That's his whole point in saying, "Bring back the draft." His point is that if our children were exposed to the dangers of combat we would be less likely to engage in it. He is absolutely right. I remember the anti-war protests during Vietnam. I also remember that they disappeared right after the draft was ended. Ones opinion about the war was largely determined by the likelihood that one would have to fight in it.
This mirrors my point that if people paid more equally for social benefits they would be more thoughtful before they asked for more of them. The voters of Oregon just gave testament to this.
Also, "Finally, I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the difference between food and an espresso machine. Very basic living standards ought to be the right of any American."
All I was trying to point out is the unlimited nature the demand for "rights" takes on when their exercise only means taking the possessions of others. When someone demands that others pay for, for example, his health care and then goes driving off in his Honda, what he really wants is someone to pay for his Honda since if he used that money to pay instead for his health care, he would have it. It's not that he can't afford health care, it's that he wants someone else to buy it for him so he can have both it and his Honda. This is exactly why Medicaid now pays for nursing home care for people who were middle class their whole lives until they gave their money to their kids. A whole industry has been spawned to facilitate these transactions. This is where and why the discovery of new rights is so useful, popular and never ending. If everyone has a right to nursing home care, no one has to save for it. Instead, we can all buy espresso machines with the money we otherwise would have had to save.
I'm not very worried about who pays for the basic living standards of people, even non-Americans. Hell, I don't even care if I buy HBO for somebody, even if I don't have it. If people are starving, they will not be restrained by arguments about bio-engineered corn, let alone about rights. Nor should they be. In America, judging from the latest obesity statistics, lack is not the biggest dietary problem of anyone, especially the poor. You say "very basic" living standards should be met. I'd go as far as basic, eliminating the very. I'd even go somewhat beyond that. But we should always remember that basic means something and whatever that may be precisely, it is not unlimited.
See we took it on the chin last night. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from here!
Anyway, I wanted to try again with the post I put up yesterday.
You asked, "Does that mean exempting women and the elderly from combat opts them out of responsiblity?"
Yes it does, as far as responsibility for evaluating the consequences of war goes. If you don't believe me, ask Charley Rangel. That's his whole point in saying, "Bring back the draft." His point is that if our children were exposed to the dangers of combat we would be less likely to engage in it. He is absolutely right. I remember the anti-war protests during Vietnam. I also remember that they disappeared right after the draft was ended. Ones opinion about the war was largely determined by the likelihood that one would have to fight in it.
This mirrors my point that if people paid more equally for social benefits they would be more thoughtful before they asked for more of them. The voters of Oregon just gave testament to this.
Also, "Finally, I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the difference between food and an espresso machine. Very basic living standards ought to be the right of any American."
All I was trying to point out is the unlimited nature the demand for "rights" takes on when their exercise only means taking the possessions of others. When someone demands that others pay for, for example, his health care and then goes driving off in his Honda, what he really wants is someone to pay for his Honda since if he used that money to pay instead for his health care, he would have it. It's not that he can't afford health care, it's that he wants someone else to buy it for him so he can have both it and his Honda. This is exactly why Medicaid now pays for nursing home care for people who were middle class their whole lives until they gave their money to their kids. A whole industry has been spawned to facilitate these transactions. This is where and why the discovery of new rights is so useful, popular and never ending. If everyone has a right to nursing home care, no one has to save for it. Instead, we can all buy espresso machines with the money we otherwise would have had to save.
I'm not very worried about who pays for the basic living standards of people, even non-Americans. Hell, I don't even care if I buy HBO for somebody, even if I don't have it. If people are starving, they will not be restrained by arguments about bio-engineered corn, let alone about rights. Nor should they be. In America, judging from the latest obesity statistics, lack is not the biggest dietary problem of anyone, especially the poor. You say "very basic" living standards should be met. I'd go as far as basic, eliminating the very. I'd even go somewhat beyond that. But we should always remember that basic means something and whatever that may be precisely, it is not unlimited.
#3
Hi. I'm new here, from the class of '72 (Ag school). It's great to see the team once again enjoying the kind of success it had when I was a student. Great memories that I'm sure have been relived on this board many times so I'll spare everyone another recap.
I wanted to reply to a post DeltaOne81 made complaining about the President's proposed tax cut being tilted too severely to the high end of the income distribution.
IMO, the problem with the income tax structure is that it places too heavy a burden on the rich and doesn't ask enough of everyone else. For 1998, the top 1.7% of taxpayers (income wise) paid 40% of the income tax. They had 22% of the income. The bottom 75% of payers, who had 33% of the income, paid only 11% of the income tax. By the way, I'm one of the 75%.
I see two, at least, problems with this. A little reflection will show that any income tax cut must favor the rich since, practically speaking, they're the only ones paying the tax. Thus, any tax cut proposal is a ready made platform for class warriors to denounce it as a giveaway to the rich. Taxes can never be reduced regardless of the state of the budget. This happened in the late '90's.
More disturbing is its deformative effect on democracy. When a large part of the population can vote itself benefits that they have no part in paying for, it's easy to see in which direction matters will go: the endless discovery of peoples "rights" to things they had no role in producing but would like to have anyway. Food, education, health care, a car or two, color TV, an espresso machine: there is no end to it. And there's always someone who will see the opportunity for himself in arguing for these rights. And people, being what we are, are always a receptive audience.
The tax structure as it is is ustable, like anything that's top heavy. When the high income population took a hit, states like NY and CA that depend excessively on it for their tax contributions saw receipts fall off a cliff. If the burden were distributed more evenly, this would not have happened.
Luckily, I'm not running for office anywhere so I can express these views. But to get back to DeltaOne81, I wouldn't lose too much sleep about letting the people who earned their money keep a little more of it. What are we talking about? $60 - 70 billion a year in a budget of over $2 trillion? It's rounding error!
I wanted to reply to a post DeltaOne81 made complaining about the President's proposed tax cut being tilted too severely to the high end of the income distribution.
IMO, the problem with the income tax structure is that it places too heavy a burden on the rich and doesn't ask enough of everyone else. For 1998, the top 1.7% of taxpayers (income wise) paid 40% of the income tax. They had 22% of the income. The bottom 75% of payers, who had 33% of the income, paid only 11% of the income tax. By the way, I'm one of the 75%.
I see two, at least, problems with this. A little reflection will show that any income tax cut must favor the rich since, practically speaking, they're the only ones paying the tax. Thus, any tax cut proposal is a ready made platform for class warriors to denounce it as a giveaway to the rich. Taxes can never be reduced regardless of the state of the budget. This happened in the late '90's.
More disturbing is its deformative effect on democracy. When a large part of the population can vote itself benefits that they have no part in paying for, it's easy to see in which direction matters will go: the endless discovery of peoples "rights" to things they had no role in producing but would like to have anyway. Food, education, health care, a car or two, color TV, an espresso machine: there is no end to it. And there's always someone who will see the opportunity for himself in arguing for these rights. And people, being what we are, are always a receptive audience.
The tax structure as it is is ustable, like anything that's top heavy. When the high income population took a hit, states like NY and CA that depend excessively on it for their tax contributions saw receipts fall off a cliff. If the burden were distributed more evenly, this would not have happened.
Luckily, I'm not running for office anywhere so I can express these views. But to get back to DeltaOne81, I wouldn't lose too much sleep about letting the people who earned their money keep a little more of it. What are we talking about? $60 - 70 billion a year in a budget of over $2 trillion? It's rounding error!
Pages1
