Parker’s argument devolves into rant

In a manner not typical of liberals, Tim Parker starts off trying to make a reasoned, logical argument against Dr. Mark Hendrickson’s article from the previous week.

Halfway through his missive, Parker resorts to the tried and true liberal way of arguing an issue; that is, attack your opponents with name calling and hope that will overpower the lack of facts.

Parker’s assault on Rush Limbaugh (“bloated drug addict’) and Glenn Beck (“half-wit”) are specious and lend no substance to his argument.

Next, he makes a claim without basis in fact, that “the very rich who benefit most from our society, but wish to contribute proportionally the least.”

Yes, the rich benefit a lot from our economic system, but they also contribute proportionally much more in income taxes than their share of the income. Many of the wealthiest Americans are also the greatest contributors to philanthropy.

This, while those at the lower end of the economic ladder receive much from society and contribute little in taxes.

Finally, he closes with another ad hominen attack, this time on Grove City College, calling it a “crappy little college.”

Far from being “crappy” Grove City College is a highly ranked conservative college founded on Christian values (likely the reason Mr Parker thinks so poorly of the school). Grove City has received national recognition from many publications and its freshman classes typically have high SAT scores and an excellent average GPA.

Parker’s resorting to attacks on a school about which he obviously knows little reduces has argument to nothing more than the typical left wing rant.

Robert Brown

Peachtree City, Ga.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Poor

We've had this discussion, but the poor should be helped by individuals not by government.

I don't have a problem with appropriate taxes, I have a problem with taxes for the purpose of re-distribution of wealth. Taxes that support laws that protect life, liberty, and property have my support.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Redistribution of wealth....really?

You seriously see all taxes as "re-distribution of wealth?" Well you must watch Fox alot. What about infrastructure? What about Defense? What about Interstate Commerce? What about Homeland Security? What about the FBI,CIA, NSA?
It is true that Social Security and Medicare account for a great portion of out budget, as does Defense. But I ask you, are you going to turn down either Social Security or Medicare when you retire? I doubt it. If all the conservatives were so opposed to these massive government programs, why not turn them down? But that would be like Saxby Chambliss speaking loudly against earmarks then taking 63 earmarks "because everyone else does."
Yeah, we could significantly cut the budget and NEED TO! But let's call a spade a spade and be honest about it. We also need to raise taxes. The Bush tax cut added nearly 50% to the yearly $500 Billion debt increase during the fiscally conservative Republican Govt. That is about $2 TRILLION that we could have saved if Bush had just left the Clinton tax structure in place. So, how about this, Obama's Bi-partisan debt reduction panel had figured it out. The Repubs (along with the Dems) resoundingly rejected the entire plan. The Repubs,, prior to taking office, forced a $1 trillion addition to our national debt via their "tax plan," then took office vowing to reduce the deficit by $100 Billion. A) they just added $1 Trillion, B) they vowed to cut $100 Billion, result, an addition of only a mere net $900 Billion. BUT.....now they are saying "well...it'll only be a $50 Billion cut....oops...our bad."

By the way, 95% of the Wealth in America is held by about 5% of Americans. The other 95% of us split 5% of the wealth. I'm not advocating re-distribution, but there isn't a lot left for the rest of us. And the Boehner gang just secured that the 5% are well protected and likely to see great increases at our expense. As a member of the Middle Class, I am tired of taking it in the shorts so the wealthy 2% can see great increases in wealth, hoping that a few morsels crumble down to me. A reduction in debt will strengthen the dollar and improve job opportunity. Corporations and the upper 2% benefit the most from increases in production and business, it's only fair that they invest in that growth by helping buy down our national debt and help create growth.
As for "fairness," I don't know your Marginal Tax Rate, but mine hovers around 22% average over 10 years. The Marginal Tax Rate average for the upper 2% is about 18%. I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the wealthiest in America.
Is that "fair?"

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Birdman got stats?
birdman wrote:

The Marginal Tax Rate average for the upper 2% is about 18%. I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the wealthiest in America.
Is that "fair?"

"As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including:
•38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes

•4.0 percent of federal social insurance taxes (Social Security and Medicare)

•58.6 percent of corporate income taxes (indirectly, through stock ownership)

•5.5 percent of federal excise taxes (on such things as gasoline, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and telephones.)"

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top...

Now that is just the top 1%.. What say we bet that the top 2% pays even more.

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents...

You were saying?

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Observerofu...yeah...I do

Here you go (although these statistics are specifically the top 400 income earners):

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/top-400-taxpayers/

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf

Conclusion, in 2007 the top 400 paid an average marginal tax rate of 16.62% (see last chart).

Here is a chart regarding effective tax rates. You will see that it appears that the upper percentage paid was around 20-23%: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

I must admit I reviewed my 2009 return and my effective tax rate was about 18%. Obama actually CUT our taxes. The last year under Bush my effective tax rate was about 24% These numbers were derived from my tax program.

Hope this helps.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well birdman the top 400 is not the top 2% which you claim

paid less in taxes then you did. Are you telling us that you are one of these 400?

Wow can I get a loan?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, good morning.

OofU, good morning, what happened to "Tyger"? Did you chase him/her away?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Cat got his tongue

I guess. Hope you stay safe tonight we already have over 2 inches of snow and now comes the ice.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
You too, stay safe. I'm

You too, stay safe. I'm hoping everyone is smart enough to stay off the roads until its safe to travel. For anyone that has to travel, I wish them good luck.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Birdman - Yes

Yes, why collect taxes if the government had no intent to re-distribute it?

If money doesn't not represent wealth then what does it represent?

Where does the money come from?

Someone has a life, they use their freedom to choose along with their abilities, skills, and their labor to earn an honest dollar through free exchange.

Where does the money go?

Some of it goes to address our needs and wants but government forces us to pay part of our dollar to the government, key word here is "force"

How is the money spent?

Well pretty much anyway the government wants it to be spent.

How should the money be spent?

To protect us from the government and outside force. The only reason that government should exist is to protect our Lives, Liberty, and Property. Any money we give them should be solely for this purpose. If the government doesn't do this then it fails to provide the service upon which it was created.

Hope this clears things up for you pal.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Ok PTC-O...not too clear "pal"

First, we actually ELECT our representatives, and they determine our taxes. You remember...the whole "taxation with representation" thing? Second, funding the govt. doesn't "re-distribute" wealth, it pays for services. You know, little things like the military, police, Homeland Security, interstate highway system, waterways, ports, air travel, oh... You get the idea. Yeah, yeah, I know we DO help the poor, the seniors, those out of work, etc. I suppose that counts as "re-distribution of wealth." I doubt those on unemployment actually feel like they're "wealthy."
I don't particularly like how some of my tax money is spent. That is why I blog, write my Congressman, and vote.

I doubt this does, because "none is as blind as this who will not see," but I ask you PAL, does THIS clear it up? Uh, does it?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bird - nope

Doesn't clear up a thing, I can't see it.

I do know how it works though. I don't like most of what government provides in "service". It is expensive and of poor quality. The only service I want out of the government is the protection of my life, my liberty, and my property. The only reason we need a government is for these protections. I might add it is something it is failing to do. I agree the that none is so blind as those that can't see. I believe that you can't see that the government is attacking these three things on a daily basis. It is the state we must fear first, its power and its corruption. If you can't see this then you are the one that is blind.

I guess we don't see eye to eye?

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
PTC-O...guess not

We don't see eye to eye. Maybe you could explain how the govt. Will protect life, liberty, and property with no one paying for it. Actually I think it's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." But that's a minor point. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how much we should be taxed, exactly what these taxes should pay for, and exactly what was your marginal tax rate for 2009. That would be a good starting point for debate.

Maybe you could also expound on how the govt. Is daily attacking life, liberty, and property. I am not seeing it. Please give me some examples.

I actually think that we are the freeist country in the world. Or were until the Bush Administration began restricting our freedom in the name of security. How did you feel about that?

Anyway, inquiring minds want to know.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bird - Well

Well I am glad you asked, so many on this board don’t.

Let me take your last comment first, I believe you have just given yourself an example of how government is restricting our freedoms with infamous Bush “Patriot’s Act”. I could list many more, like the most recent Healthcare law that forces us to pay for healthcare, would you consider this law and its force on citizens, protecting our freedom? Or how about the fact that when the Republic was founded the only federal crimes were piracy, treason, and counterfeiting today there are more than 3,000 crimes derived from statutes and another 10,000 that have been created by regulation.

The criminalization through the use of government bureaucrats on a continuous basis threatens all three freedoms. It is difficult for a citizen to act freely in a society that is replete with rules that are made up as you go. Statutes written by Congress are given over to a hoard of bureaucrats that twist the meaning of statutes to fit their perceived notions of what is ‘fair and right”. Is this freedom through representation?

We have become not a representative government but an administrative state similar to that achieved by Germany using the passage of the German Reichstag Enabling Act of 1933. Congress is transferring its lawmaking power to a non-elected bureaucracy.

Self rule ceases to exist when elected representatives don’t make the laws that we live by on a daily basis. Today our ability to freely operate in society, use our property, and live our lives is constantly regulated by well intentioned bureaucrats. It is getting worse not better and it is a threat to our freedoms.

Now to your questions about taxes, I don’t have any good answers on what the tax code should look like, I do believe that no tax is going to be “fair” but I do believe that everyone that lives in this society should pay some tax. Those taxes should be used for the purpose of protecting our three inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. I never suggested otherwise. It should not be used for anything else.

If you want specific examples of how the bureaucracy is denying freedom I will cover that in another post....there are so many specific examples it could take up a lot of space here.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I’m not asking you to

PTC_0, I’m not asking you to change your mind. If you believe “…the poor should be helped by individuals not by government…” that’s okay with me.

Quote:

My question to you is, “If all government social programs could be stopped today, would the country be better off?”

If you will permit me one more question, “If all government social programs could be stopped today, would the country have more or less poor?”

As far as taxes goes, my opinion is, “all taxes are for the purpose of re-distribution of wealth.” The argument is over what it's spend it on.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - sorry I missed that

must have been the skinny string.

Let me take you last statement first, "all taxes are for the purpose of re-distribution of wealth".

This is true, but a re-distribution to a police force or a judicial system for the purpose of protecting Life, Liberty, and Property is far different than re-distribution for let's say studying butterflies. My point is that tax re-distribution to others should only be for the purpose of protecting Life, Liberty, and Property.

Question #1, if all government social programs could be stopped today, would the country be better off? Answer, not likely from a civil stand point. These programs would need to be phased out over time to let the economy readjust to the capital flows into the market. Once someone is dependent on the government and you suddenly cut it off, it is like coming off cocaine I would imagine. I would point out that the reality of economics is not suspended though, we see this in the European countries that have run out of money to fund social programs, workers, benefits, etc. There are strikes and riots in the streets. We will have the same here if we suddenly cut off the money, but then again when we run out of the money, it will happen anyway.

Second Question, If all government social programs could be stopped today, would the country have more or less poor? Answer, I assume we would have the same number. What I mean is if the government is paying the poor and we cut the poor off from public funding wouldn't we simply have the same number without tax money to support them? If they are not poor why would the government be paying them?

Now if you meant to say would they be worse off? Yes. However, you should then refer to the answer in the first question. These would be the people on the streets. It was said many years ago by a Russian friend of mine that the difference between Americans and Russians is that the Russians simply lock up "economic" troublmakers and in America we pay them off not to cause trouble. There some truth to this observation.

I would say that if we let the markets work there woud be enough work for those that wanted to work. For those that didn't then in my opinion they should starve. For those caught in circumstances, we should have charity.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, #3, I'm not convinced

PTC_0, #3, I'm not convinced that we would have the same number of poor if we took away all social programs. I think the numbers would grow for the elderly and working poor.

Let’s say you take food stamps and subsidized housing away from the working poor. That will just make them poorer, more desperate, and could lead to strife. If you take away Medicare and Social Security away from the elderly many would soon become poor.

Can charity service the needs of the poor now? I don’t think so. How can one expect charity to serve a growing number of poor? I don’t think they can.

As for as the Free-Market is concerned, I have to ask, who is going to invest capital in an economic venture to serve the poor? What business model is there that can satisfy the profit motive?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
#3 Gort

I agree charity can't do this now but it's because government is attempting to do it. I think we should wean them off government support and allow charities to work. We know that charities are much better at getting to the poor and taking care of them than government. The first responders in any crisis have always been the charities. There is no reason to believe that they can't do the same thing with the working poor. I think that they do a lot now but not as much as they could if government would step out of the way.....slowly.

Capitalists don't invest in the poor unless they can make money out of it. That's how capitalism works and to answer your specific question, I don't know. But I do know that as long as the government is regulating business and suppressing freedom to operate the creation of businesses to serve the poor and others is suppressed. The dynamics of a free market is hard to predict, it is limited only to the creative nature of those involved and the availability of capital.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I don’t know of

PTC_0, I don’t know of anything the government does that would prevent charity from taking over caring for the poor, do you? If they could, then why don’t they? I argue, they don’t because they can’t. They can barely fill in the spaces left by the government.

I’m not familiar with a disaster were the first responders were a charity. Can you site me one that I might be familiar with?

We all like to talk about the “dynamics of a free market” but I don’t know of any markets that are truly free. Can you name a few?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Yes

Yes, my premise is that government crowds out charity. That is government with its vast resources keep charity from developing to its full potential.

Yes, I believe that Katrina saw the Red Cross there before just about anyone else. In fact, I was in Houston the night before Katrina and there were at least 100 Red Cross workers staged at my hotel waiting for the storm to come in, the government by contrast waited days to respond.

No, unfortunately I can't name one society that allows absoulte free markets. However you might be interested in the correlation of economic freedom and standard of living. Here is a link to the rankings:

http://www.heritage.org/Index/

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, once again, I respect

PTC_0, once again, I respect your position that “government crowds out charity.” I believe that charity can, at best, only fill the gaps that government neglects.

Katrina is a good example. The Red Cross may have been staged in Houston the night before the storm but the first film I seen coming out of New Orleans, after the storm, was the Coast Guard helicopter crews rescuing people from rooftops. I admit, my view was limited to what come across on television.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Red Cross

Gort, I did say "almost". The Coast Guard was there flown in from off shore and further East down the Coast. Those guys did a great job too.

The Red Cross was there with more aid first and gave comfort before the government got there.

The point is that charity can in fact work if it is allowed to work and if government will get out of the way. However, it can only really happen if we unleash the power of the free market. Allow it to work and as Kennedy said "let if float all boats equally". Government can in fact create "Hope and Change", but it must get out of the way of the markets.

There would be mistakes, there would be risk, there would be crooks, but those things should not frighten us in to giving up our freedom to choose for ourselves.

Without freedom, the poor suffer the most.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, #2, if all government

PTC_0, if all government social programs could be stopped today, it would lead to civil unrest. I think we can both agree that civil unrest is not good for the country? My point of view is civil unrest threatens everyone’s “Life, Liberty, and Property.”

Your example of comparing it to “weaning someone off cocaine” makes the assumption, once free of an addiction one can fend for themselves. This is not true of the elderly. If you took away their social programs do you really expect them to re-enter the work force.

Kicking the can down the road does nothing to help us now, so I just don’t see how taking Social Security and Medicare away from our children would enable them to better fend for themselves once they reached an age when they could no longer work.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
#2 Gort

Well this is the insidious part of government dependence. It teaches people that they can't fend for themselves. It also has other unintended consequences, like the breakdown of the family unit. Families no longer take responsibility for their parents, grandparents, etc. because they know the government will do that for them. The concept of personal responsibility is destroyed and/or isn't valued. No one can deny that the government will provide less than a loving family concerned with an aged love one. The corrosive effect of government programs on our willingness to help our family members cannot be minimized.

Given the opportunity, our children and their children would be able to help out their parents when the time arrives. Staying dependent on government throws the older generation to the wolves and doesn’t allow them to stay with their social support structure.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, here you are making an

PTC_0, here you are making an emotional argument. If someone is lucky, they are nurtured in an environment that teaches them those values but the sentiments you express are not universally known. How can one expect to understand the emotions that drive others when they recognize none but their own? If someone is “sitting on top of the world,” they can afford to be philosophical about these matters. However, if you are struggling to just survive, you just don’t have that luxury.

But let’s not change the subject to human emotion. We are talking about “Life, Liberty, and Property.” It makes no mention of emotions. Certainly you would agree that markets make no consideration for it.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - you too

are making an emotional argument. The problem is that you somehow believe that the state can be the solution to those that are "struggling to just survive.." It can't in my view.

Markets have only one interest and that is self-interest. This is true, but it is self-interest that makes us strive and overcome adversity. It is what brings us up and is the spark for human ingenuity. In a society that is without law, it can also lead to corruption and theft. That is why we must have government, because unlike God, men are not perfect. Government must protect our Life, our Liberty, and our Property. This is the only purpose for government, nothing else.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, if you permit me to

PTC_0, if you permit me to repeat myself, I think I’ve already made my case. “My argument for having social programs in a capitalist economy is based on the principle, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Meaning the cost of preventing civil unrest is less costly than putting down a general rebellion.”

If you don’t accept my argument, it’s okay by me. I’m not asking you to change your mind or position. In fact, I’m thrilled just presenting an argument on this forum without the usual name calling and red baiting! That’s victory enough for me and I hope you feel the same way!

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, #1, well lets lay out the

PTC_0, well lets lay out the cards and see where we stand. So far we agree on, "All taxes are for the purpose of re-distribution of wealth".

But you make it conditional, “It should only be for the purpose of protecting Life, Liberty, and Property.” I agree with your conditions and my next argument is, “Social programs are for the purpose of protecting “Life, Liberty, and Property.”

As far as butterfly studies go, I’m not familiar with it but, if you’re talking about waste in government, you have an ally in Gort! On the other hand, about a hundred years ago people complained the same way about “killing mosquitoes on the Isthmus of Panama.” The reality was, without it, the Panama Canal could not have been completed. My point is? You can’t always judge a book by its cover.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
#1 Gort - expand

Please expand the argument:

"Social programs are for the purpose of protecting “Life, Liberty, and Property.”

Give examples of social programs that protect these three rights, and how these programs do that. Remember that rights are individual, so in my mind it is difficult to take someone's property re-distribute it to another person using force of government and not violate that persons Life or Liberty, or Property. So, just so you understand that is my position.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, to sustain life, one

PTC_0, to sustain life, one must have the necessities of food, water, and shelter. If these necessities are denied to a larger and larger share of the population, it would cause strife. The strife could turn to anger. The anger could turn to violence. Violence would threaten everyone’s life, liberty, and property. Markets can’t efficiently function in such a chaotic environment. Therefore it is in everyone’s self interest that the general welfare of the population is provided for.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - well

this is true if society was not dynamic but it is dynamic. I don't think people will sit around waiting for government to feed, clothe and house them if they know the government has no intent to do this.

They will seek employment, they will labor, they will create, they will learn, and they will find individual personal responsibility. In the end they will thrive, without government.

Why do you think that social programs by the state are better than human action and free will? Clearly, there is a common belief that the state is the primary answer to human misery, when in fact is the cause of much human misery. Just look at the history of mankind: 20 million dead by socialist principles in Germany, 35 million in Russia, 40 million in China. All of these were social engineered societies that worshiped the state and the sacrifice of individualism as the answer to human ills. What makes the rise of central governmental power and social engineering the United States any different? The outcome can be exactly the same. Have we not learned anything from philosophy, human and economic history?

My question is: what specific government sponsored major social program has been a glowing success in your mind? Just one please! If you are having a hard time identifying one, why do you persist in holding government out as a solution to social ills? Why is individual freedom so counter to your beliefs?

Sorry if I sound dogmatic but I have strong beliefs in the power of individual freedom.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I’m no defender or

PTC_0, I’m no defender or advocate of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Red China. In fact my argument is, in each case, the form of government that preceded them neglected the general welfare of the population to a degree that allowed the seduction of communism to take place.

My argument for having social programs in a capitalist economy is based on the principle, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Meaning the cost of preventing civil unrest is less costly than putting down a general rebellion.

As far as the dynamics are concerned I’ll say this. By either twist of fate, or by an unlucky circumstance, you find yourself in the position of suddenly becoming poor, anyone who is capable, would struggle to alleviate their position by becoming productive. The problem is, when we are talking about people, the need for the things required for survival, (food, shelter, water,) are more immediate than the “invisible hand of the market” can deliver.

BTW, for me, being stubborn is a quality I admire in myself but abhor in other. If you can forgive me for that, then I can forgive you for being dogmatic. 8 - )

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - I

I do forgive you and appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you.

So, I see your position and there is no way to refute it without the end to government intervention in people's lives. I doubt that will happen very soon, but there is always hope. The fact is that our citizens have been at the government trough for so long they have forgotten concepts like personal responsibility, initiative and self-reliance. They have substituted God for the State, they believe that it is the answer to all of humanity’s ills. When anything goes wrong in our lives it is the citizens that look to government to solve these issues. Government does not solve many issues, it generally creates them. Anyway, I don’t suppose that you can be persuaded of this claim but it is my strong belief based on observation.

The comment about Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Red China is interesting. You see I don't believe much of the current "history" surrounding the development of these political social structures. In the case of the Nazi Germany, they believed that the Soviets and Chinese Communists to be “unpure” socialists since both focused primarily on economic principles. The Nazi's believed that they were the pure socialists because 99% of the population supported every aspect of their dogma; they controlled the minds, bodies, and wealth of the entire nation. The nation willingly followed not because of past events necessarily, they followed because they actually believed it. You know what this lead to.

However, to your point all three developed within poverty, but that poverty was created by the lack of freedom, not because of it. In all three cases it was replaced with something far worse. The tragedy and war that followed is the result of turning total power over to the state and minimizing individual freedom.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Twisting words - Tiger?

"We "the people" won't let you and yours finish off this great nation with your delusional idea that business is good, worker bad and anything done in the name of profit is acceptable!"

Who's twisting words now?

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
Um, that would still be you
PTC Observer wrote:

"We "the people" won't let you and yours finish off this great nation with your delusional idea that business is good, worker bad and anything done in the name of profit is acceptable!"

Who's twisting words now?

You, still and evermore...

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey tygersilver...

I'm curious, did you have a couple of "cousins" that went by the monikers of "basmati" and "sniffles"?

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
What?

What are you talking about? Is this some kind of insult?

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
ts

of the worst kind, I'm surprised you'd take that.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
hutch

Silencing someone else I see!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
roundaboutadollar

I know you're not into proof, just wild statements that can't be proved, but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, tell me who I have silenced. Just one person will do, Hell you've silenced more people then me, just by changing your identity. You're just mad because I picked you out on your first post.

BTW, how's that lawsuit coming?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Not at all, cyclist

You should remember there are many more RealAmericans™ besides myself dedicated to eradicating conservative ignorance from this site.

I must say that I like the cut of this Tygershark's jib. He/She isn't afraid to stand toe-to-toe against some of the more vitriolic America haters here.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
According to Krispie, Tiger, and DM et al

Disagreement with their uber-libral, mindless rants = "hate".

Just sayin'

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
me thinks thou doth protest too much
Joe Kawfi wrote:

Disagreement with their uber-libral, mindless rants = "hate".

Just sayin'

same way socialist is used in almost every don't have an answer, sling an insult post?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Tigger

Socialist is used in almost every post because it perfectly describes Obama's plans and the liberal goals for this country.

You really are a pathetic wanker.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
OK Bacon

I just wanted to make sure. BTW, have fun going after those mean old conservatives.

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
It's sad that this is where we are...

That Faux and people like Rush have destroyed any ability to actually discuss anything! They rely on shouting down anyone with a valid point instead of examining an issue, they insult, side-step, attack, deflect, derail, and paint anyone who disagrees red (or pink), meanwhile they never stay on topic and NEVER have solutions. The "conversation always goes the same way...I say “I’m angry because my puppy chewed up my shoe" they say "So, you want to kill all dogs, right?" They think it makes them sound smart, this absurd attack interview format but we all lose when communication is impossible. How can we create solutions when we can't even talk about the problem?

For instance they are screaming about cutting spending but ask what they intend to cut and they will start ranting. I can tell you what they plan to cut, education and transportation. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/politics/04fiscal.html?exprod=myyahoo
They want people to be stupid, it makes them easy to manipulate and control.

They will gladly continue to pour money into war mongering, pander to fear to erode what is left of our civil liberties in the name of security, they have demonstrated they will illegally detain and prevent reporters from access, and generally create a government that uses fear and hate to control it's citizens which has striking similarity to the communism and socialism they scream that they hate.

I will never stop, I will fight for this country and it's most valuable resource...us, we, the people.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
You're right

"They want people to be stupid, it makes them easy to manipulate and control. "

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! The "they" have done a great job of convincing the sheeple that the government is their salvation and anything besides what the government tells you is "good" or "bad" is something beyond the realm of understanding. Hence, you have an idiotic War on People that has turned Mexico into a 3rd World cesspool of nightmarish proportions and a bunch of Americans who have no idea at all about how to make a moral decision in their lives because that's the government's job to do! If it's legal, it's a GREAT thing to do! If it's not, it's a really bad thing! If something goes wrong with a decision I made, save me, government!

Society dumbed-down people long ago with their pitiful reliance on a "government" to tell them what to do or not to do by codifying their beliefs at the time into laws to protect the lowest common denominators of society. That was in no way the intention of how this country was founded and nor was it what made it great.

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
Lot of attack, not a bit of fact!

philanthropy:

1.The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.
2.Love of humankind in general.
3.Something, such as an activity or institution, intended to promote human welfare.

Why can't any of you come up with any data? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE!!

Anything monetary over and above the precentage of income that can be written off in taxes is generally unreported. Many charities will thank you for money but what they really need is your time.

I think somewhere in your angry, needy hating, trash talking, hearts you know better. True charity is the gift of time, counseling, feeding, educating, and giving of one's self.

Again, Robert Brown has no factual evidence that the rich contribute more and neither do any of you!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Not quiet right there tigger

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_chari...

ABC's "20/20" study:
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

Researching his book, "Who Really Cares", Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.

The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income."

btw- anecdotal evidence granted but a person with a 4 year degree is more likely to be wealthy than a person without one.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764352.html

Note people with a 4 yr degree VOLUNTEERS their time more then others since dollars do not count as charity in your world..

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
tyger: the envy and ignorance is showing

Have you heard of something called GOOGLE? It's an amazing online search engine that can help YOU look up who are the biggest givers to charities and exactly how much. Amazingly, a lot of these same charities and other groups have their financial statements even ONLINE, including DONOR NAMES. I know, amazing!

So, after showing your total ignorance with the statement about how the dreaded "rich" don't really contribute much at all to charity(total BS), do your own research and relieve that ignorance a little, then report back to us on your findings.

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
What I said was...

Robert's assertion that the rich contribute more is a fabrication.

READ the def. above...charity is NOT JUST MONEY!

Since you have done the research, please share!

I would love to see you provide just the number of hours of service that volunteers provide from coast to coast...report back soon!

ps, read comments you are responding to first, you won't look like your pic! BOZO

GAltant
GAltant's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2009
Hate to burst your bubble on Grove City College

If you look up Grove City College you will see that their SAT scores are "average" to say the least.....and they accept 64% of the applicants who apply.
This is no bastion of higher education...not saying its not a nice school where you can get a good education but you need to take off your rose colored glasses. Its harder to get into University of Georgia which was just ranked #1 party school in America!

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
Oh Robert, grow a pair!

Guys like Rush and Glenn spew hateful, distorted, and blatant LIES! They can take care of themselves and don't need you to defend them.

Your argument "the rich benefit a lot from our economic system, but they also contribute proportionally much more in income taxes than their share of the income. Many of the wealthiest Americans are also the greatest contributors to philanthropy." is a complete fabrication!

Frankly, your letter is much more classifiable as a "rant" than Tim's well written letter.

Grow up, grow a pair, and admit you are out of your league!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
The many, many lies of Glenn Beck

Ole Glenn lies so often that there is a website that catalogs his lies on a daily basis: LINK

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Kind of weak, CPB

Site seems to hold a different opinion than Beck's BS but I don't think they show any real big "lies" as much as showcasing opinions of his they think are totally wrong.

I'm not a fan of Beck at all because I see him for the entertainer-making-money that he is, but he does straddle the line between "opinion" and "fact" a lot better than the website you link to does.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
tygersilver
tygersilver wrote:

Guys like Rush and Glenn spew hateful, distorted, and blatant LIES! They can take care of themselves and don't need you to defend them.

Your argument "the rich benefit a lot from our economic system, but they also contribute proportionally much more in income taxes than their share of the income. Many of the wealthiest Americans are also the greatest contributors to philanthropy." is a complete fabrication!

Frankly, your letter is much more classifiable as a "rant" than Tim's well written letter.

Grow up, grow a pair, and admit you are out of your league!

Care to share a few examples of the hateful, distorted, and blatant lies you heard from Rush and Beck? -GP

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
examples?

It's what they do for a living!!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
That is not an example!

You accused them of blatant lies and can not provide even one example? There seems to be some kind of disease amongst socialists, the symtoms are parroting things phrases like: Beck and Rush are bad and (drumroll please)....it's all George Bush's fault. Post some facts. -GP

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
when all else fails call me a socialist

It would be funny except you really think everyone who does not agree with your multimillionaire actors is a socialist!

Here is the best lie of all, that Obama is a socialist! Want to know if he is a socialist, go ask one and they will explain he is not even close!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Tiger - you're correct!

Finally, you are correct Mr. Obama is a Progressive. However, if he could call himself a socialist and get elected he would do it.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
If the shoe fits

...wear it. For the record I did not call you a socialist, but I did state that demonizing Rush and Beck without using any facts was a symptom of the disease of socialism. You called both men liars, all I am asking is for you to state what they lied about. And yes, I do considered Obama's government takeover of private industry and his redistribution of wealth policies to be symptoms of the disease of socialism. -GP

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Tiger, you are correct, some

Tiger, you are correct, some folks on “The Citizen” do tend to overuse the term “socialist” and apply it lavishly whenever someone doesn’t agree with them. I believe the correct term for this behavior is called “conditioning reflex.” It’s caused by a severe overdose of conservative talk radio, and watching too much of Faux News. 8 - )

Furthermore, when they do call you a socialist, it serves as “call out” for help. As you can see, others tend to pile on in an attempt to overwhelm you and ultimately silence you.

Don’t let them win. If you believe in what you’re saying, keep fighting

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - actually I agree

with you, most here can't identify socialism, that's why we have people here that deny that they are socialists, when they are.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, has anyone ever

PTC_0, has anyone ever actually identified themselves as a socialist on this forum? Or have they always been declared so by the non-biased, fair and balanced, opposition?

As I was reading Tyger’s post I thought to myself. Look how Tyger struggles in the face of all this hostility rather than compromise his/her personal opinion. A modern day, Howard Roark and the postings on this forum are his/her Fountainhead! 8 - )

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Opinion

Well Gort, the purpose of the board is to express our ideas, some do this poorly and others don't.

In my opinion those that believe that they aren't socialists are wrong. They have never known anything but socialism. It's not their fault they have been educated by the government. Their well intentioned positions have led to a reduction in our individual rights. This is not a Democrat or Republican thing, because they too are socialistic, fact is the folks on this board don't recognize it, that's all.

BTW, the hostility we see here is driven by the inability to express ideas in writing, another fault of our public schools.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, Ouch! That stings! I

PTC_0, Ouch! That stings! I didn't realize my public school education was showing? You are correct, I'm guilty as charged. I have to try and do better.

Did you receive your education in public or private schools?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - sorry

I didn't mean to direct this at you. It is a general observation that's all.

I received both a public and private education.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, there is no need to be

PTC_0, there is no need to be sorry. I don't mind dishing it out or taking it on the chin. Sometimes I read what I wrote a few days earlier and argue with myself about what I said. It's all part of the blogging experience!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort

LOL

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
When they call for help

I never thought of it that way, but I believe you're correct: When they resort to the standard "Marxist!!" "Communist!!" "Socialist!!" blather, it's actually a call for help. "Help me, my fellow extremists! My bumper sticker talking points and sloganeering aren't working!"

Someone sent me a flowchart (HERE) about how an athiest should debate a fundamentalist Christian, but I think the same principles and ground rules should apply between us RealAmericans™ and the fringe right wingers on this site.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
A Test For Bacon

In terms even he can understand : http://www.jeremiahthompson.com/blog/jers_tips/a-test-for-socialism/ Lets just spread the wealth around so everyone will feel good. This crap has failed everywhere it has been tried and will fail here. -GP

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Overwhelm and Silence?
Gort wrote:

Tiger, you are correct, some folks on “The Citizen” do tend to overuse the term “socialist” and apply it lavishly whenever someone doesn’t agree with them. I believe the correct term for this behavior is called “conditioning reflex.” It’s caused by a severe overdose of conservative talk radio, and watching too much of Faux News. 8 - )

Furthermore, when they do call you a socialist, it serves as “call out” for help. As you can see, others tend to pile on in an attempt to overwhelm you and ultimately silence you.

Don’t let them win. If you believe in what you’re saying, keep fighting

Simply not true. By all means I want everyone to speak out loudly about their beliefs and ideas! State your case with facts! The closet marxist's masquerading as moderates and centrists are much more dangerous. -GP

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
GA_P, you do realize that I

GA_P, you do realize that I said “some folks on “The Citizen”. If the term “conditioning reflex” does not apply to you then naturally I was not talking about you. It’s not like you’re the guy that come back with:

Quote:

The closet marxist's masquerading as moderates and centrists are much more dangerous. –GP

Oh, Hey, wait a minute! It was you that wrote that.

Thank you for proving my point.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Logic?

Gort, it is called a logical conclusion, read back thru the postings. Tigger first accused me of calling him a socialist, then you responded in the same thread..

Gort wrote:

Tiger, you are correct, some folks on “The Citizen” do tend to overuse the term “socialist” and apply it lavishly whenever someone doesn’t agree with them. I believe the correct term for this behavior is called “conditioning reflex.” It’s caused by a severe overdose of conservative talk radio, and watching too much of Faux News. 8 - )

Furthermore, when they do call you a socialist, it serves as “call out” for help. As you can see, others tend to pile on in an attempt to overwhelm you and ultimately silence you.

Don’t let them win. If you believe in what you’re saying, keep fighting

Gort wrote:

GA_P, you do realize that I said “some folks on “The Citizen”. If the term “conditioning reflex” does not apply to you then naturally I was not talking about you. It’s not like you’re the guy that come back with:

Quote:

The closet marxist's masquerading as moderates and centrists are much more dangerous. –GP

Oh, Hey, wait a minute! It was you that wrote that.

Thank you for proving my point.

If you were not directing your socialist remark to me than why did you post under Gort's accusation? BTW, your point, if there is one, escapes me. -GP

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
GA_P, when I first wrote to

GA_P, when I first wrote to Tyger I was referring to his/her statement "when all else fails call me a socialist." It had nothing to do with the separate conversation you were having with Tyger.

I did select the 'reply' button on "Tyger's post but don't know why my post showed up in the ranking that it did. If I had to guess I would say because there were multiple replies and that's how the software handles, (or mishandles) the rankings and was beyond my control.

If I wanted to attract a comment from you I would have selected the 'reply' button from your post and started with "GA_P". No offense about the abbreviation, its just too long, eats up spaces on the header line, and leaves no room for text.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort just what is tigger saying?

No facts, hyperbole and insults.

I have yet to see a cogent argument for or even against a single thing.

Let's review:

1. Tigger hates the Rich-check

2. Tigger hates Corporate America-check

3. Tigger said Rush and Beck lies-check

4. The Rich gives nothing to charity-check

Ok what has tigger said yet to back up a single statement. All I have seen is wealth envy, talking points and hyperbole.

I don't know if tigger is a Socialist or not but so far in my opinion he is, however, an anti-capitalist wealthy hating boob.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, well, of course I would

OofU, well, of course I would just be guessing but because you asked me, I’ll try my best.

Quote:

…just what is tigger saying?

Tyger describes his/herself as a capitalist however, he/she does not agree with your conclusions of current events concerning taxation, corporate ethics, conservative media, and the efficiency of charitable contributions.

Your both capitalist, you must have some common ground?

Or, then again, it could be Tyger just likes kicking ass on the forum.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Oh yes tigger kick some alright

and just like a pile of crap after being kicked you know what it was when you smell it.

Tigger is full of bovine excrement. If this is your standard of "debate" no wonder you agree.

btw-Tig is no capitalist.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, well, gee whiz OofU,

OofU, well, gee whiz OofU, what exactly is it that one has to do to earn their "Capitalist" credentials? Do we need to get a permit?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort saying you hate the Rich then saying you want to be one

just doesn't jive.

But remember tigger "CARES".

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, I have no idea what

OofU, I have no idea what hating, or loving, the rich has to do with determining if you are a capitalist or not. I also don’t see how having ambition to acquire wealth and at the same time expressing empathy for the disadvantaged disqualifies someone from calling themselves a capitalist. If you want to know if Tyger is a capitalist, just ask?

Quote:

Tyger, “Do you own any property, (including investments,) that is used for the production of goods or services?”

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - empathy

Empathy should start at home. Using the force of government to provide for someone else’s "empathy" is dishonest. What right do you have to my money to express your empathy Gort? Please explain your reasoning to me.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I agree “empathy

PTC_0, I agree “empathy should start at home” but the impulse should be satisfied quickly. If allowed to go on too long it becomes a “self-pit party”. I guess if one is dishonest they can pretend to be empathetic but if empathy is a human emotion, I don’t see how it could be dishonest?

Tell me, how does a human emotion, like empathy, become a force powerful enough to move a government?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - It's not empathy

that drives government, it is self-interest.

Empathy is a tool used by politicians to get re-elected at our expense.

Empathy as an emotion is not dishonest, it is the taking of someone else's money in the mistaken belief that it's o'kay to rob someone as long as the intention is "good", that is dishonest.

I hope that I have made my "dishonest" claim clear.

So, how would you justify the use of empathy as an excuse to take someone's property?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, no argument about the

PTC_0, no argument about the corrosive effects of special interest but I know of no protection against them. They are well funded and don't have to get elected to keep their jobs.

In my last post I stated, "If one is dishonest they can pretend to be empathetic". Please don't take that to mean you were being dishonest. In fact I believe it compliments your statement, "Empathy is a tool used by politicians to get re-elected at our expense." In some cases the empathy may be sincere but much of it looks feigned to me.

As far as local, state, and federal taxes are concerned, they tax because they can. The justification is they have the authority of the law to do so and exercise the authority often.

Everyone that pays taxes shares the burden of funding programs they don’t like. On “The Citizen” I see much resentment directed at programs directed at helping the poor. If those supports were removed I wonder if the country would be better or worst off.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - going to the top

of this thread to answer.

tygersilver
tygersilver's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2010
Absolutely!

Thanks Gort!

I could not have said it better.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, now did you see how

OofU, now did you see how easy that was?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort you have to be thick as molasses in winter

to not know what tigger was saying.

Tigger never backed up a single claim he made nor did he explain the inconsistency of his wealth envy no charity giving hatred of the "rich", all the while, claiming to be a capitalist business owner.

Do you think tigger went into business just to pay taxes to the city, county, state and federal governments or was it more likely that tigger went into business (if true)for the attainment of wealth?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, Arrrrrh matey! A thick

OofU, Arrrrrh matey! A thick molasses makes mighty good rum! I’m a bit surprised a man of commerce, such as yourself, so casually dismisses the value of such a commodity. 8 - )

To answer you question, I don’t know if Tyger is an investor, or has a business. Only Tyger can tell you that. Same goes for Tyger’s motives and position on taxes.

I’ll tell you what, I’ll help you out one more time and ask for you. But this is the last time I show you how to do this, the training wheels are coming off after this.

Quote:

Tyger, can you tell us if you’re a business owner or an investor?

If it’s not too much trouble, could you provide a short narrative stating your motives for participating in capitalism? Start with “I was born in a log cabin,” and fill in the blanks from there.

Oh, and one more thing, how about a brief summary of your position on local, state, and federal tax policy and how it pertains to you and your business or investments?

If it’s easier for you, perhaps you can have Ken Burn’s make a television documentary and you can just tell the rest of us what night it’s on?

Please understand, I’m not asking for myself. It is for my friend ObserverofU.

He thinks he’s the “Prince of Commerce” and only he has authority to certify you as a true capitalist.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well Gort he said he was a small business owner

but much like a lot of the claims it is unproven as well.