United States of Entropy

[anitram]

You don’t hear Barack Obama talk about prosperity or individual liberty or responsibility your hear him talk about "fairness," "collective redemption" and “shared prosperity.”

There was a very good article from Joseph Stiglitz in the NYT today about the current tax code and the American sense of fairness. The bottom line is that America is the worst place in the developed world in terms of income inequality right now. And that is not sustainable in the long term, as people who live in such anti-meritocratic borderline kleptocracies will tell you. You scoff at fairness; but eventually the complete lack of fairness which will become emblematic of America is the stuff of revolutions and the ruling class getting their heads chopped off. Even the dumbest student of history recognizes that.

 

[INDY500]

Income inequality is real and it is a problem (made all the worse by envy-merchants like our president). Part of it is how much more valuable brains are than brawn in today's economy but by far income disparity is a values problem.

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero. But you can't tell people that anymore because common sense is now deemed "mean."

 

[Jive Turkey]

values problem.

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero. But you can't tell people that anymore because common sense is now deemed "mean."

Oh, jesus christ. You know you're a caricature, right?

 

[Irvine511]

Income inequality is real and it is a problem (made all the worse by envy-merchants like our president). Part of it is how much more valuable brains are than brawn in today's economy but by far income disparity is a values problem.

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero. But you can't tell people that anymore because common sense is now deemed "mean."

I think everyone wants everyone to graduate, get a job, and then get married and have children (should they wish to).

The difference is that you think people are weak if they fail to do so.

Last week, I interviewed a woman who couldn't spell her own last name. Nor did she have teeth. She was poor, white, rural, and very Christian. Do you really think that's a *values* problem?

Or is "values" a buzzword conservatives use to absolve themselves of feeling any sense of social responsibility?

 

[cobl04]

Life is just that simple.

Astonishing.

 

[Irvine511]

I see a ton of shitty, shitty parenting in my inner-city neighborhood.

Values aren't doing a thing about it.

Better funding for pre-school on the other hand might.

 

[deep]

Last week, I interviewed a woman who couldn't spell her own last name. Nor did she have teeth. She was poor, white, rural, and very Christian. Do you really think that's a *values* problem?

I don't like labels, and 'values' sounds like a phony slogan to me

but, I will say that woman sounds like a problem, I don't know why she ended up like this, I would like to see a way to get people to be self-suffuent

perhaps we should have government communes where people can contribute while they are being provided for, yeah I know that is close to work camps, but just giving people money for nothing is like stealing from the tax payers

 

[deep]

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero. But you can't tell people that anymore because common sense is now deemed "mean."

there is some good advice here

children born to or adopted by people that are in sound financial positions and in stable households is a good practice, I would even call that, ideal
we call that planned parenthood

 

[Jive Turkey]

Values is an intangible, vague, and unfalsifiable term Indy invokes when he's got nothing substantial to say.
Maybe Indy can list all his values so we can adjust our lives accordingly. I'll start it for him and he can add:

Narcissistic
Bigoted
Homophobic
Elitist
Xenophobic
Selfish
Christ-like

 

[Diemen]

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero.

It really is just that simple, folks.

 

[anitram]

by far income disparity is a values problem.

No, it's not. You're flat out wrong and there is a horde of economists who have written on this at great length.

 

[Pearl]

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero.

And what if divorce happens? What if both parents lose their job or have their hours cut? Your ideal situation does not prevent economic troubles.

Granted, what you propose is ideal and what many would want. But it is not as easy as you think it is.

 

[anitram]

Well nevermind that what INDY is suggesting might keep you from being below the poverty line, but I wasn't aware of the news that hovering just above the poverty line and being mired in lower middle class is the new American Dream.

 

[PhilsFan]

Before I start I am going to use the term “the Left” rather than liberal, progressive or Democrat. The Left is anti-capitalist and frankly anti-American values. But unfortunately they are swallowing up the Democratic party and liberals and now push the economic and social agenda in this country. You will have to tell me where you differ from the Left’s philosophies as there many Americans that have been taught to hate conservatives but have no idea how damaging support of the modern Democratic party is.

Actually it’s not silly. The point is there is a reason that in America we treasure liberty, through our words and monuments, more than any other virtue; including equality.

Conservatives have little problem paying taxes for the constitutionally prescribed duties of the federal government. Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to tax from one party to give to another party merely for the purpose of “fairness” however? Is the purpose of a tax code to raise revenue for the function of government in the most efficient manner or for equality? Well, I would argue that the Left favors fairness over efficiency and here is but one example from the 2008 Presidential debates:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

They do suggest just that but unfortunately there aren’t enough rich people to tax to shrink the income gap without, as Margaret Thatcher noted, prosperity being lowered for everyone. But when your goal is equality not prosperity that makes little difference.

But here is Al Sharpton who ran for president as a Democrat and has his own show on MSNBC.

The Left has taken the “equality of opportunity” and turned it into the “rights” of entitlement and unearned security. The right to a living wage, the right to healthcare, etc.

Here is another very recent example from a college student in a question asked of Rand Paul.

By the government he means other taxpayers so let’s be clear about that first. Now Philly, what is the great American Experiment? What is the promise of America? That our government would provide equal and maximum opportunity for me to prosper and, through my labor and talents, take care of myself, my family and my community or that government would provide a certain level of security and freedom from want by taking the wages of others?
Actually let’s let the student answer that.

New American values. Just know that when you support the Left you support “new American values.”

Stupid? Remember, this whole debate is on liberty vs. equality. This is a perfect example that...

equality without liberty is tyranny.

Slaves in America had neither liberty or equality but what had to be secured first for the other to occur?

That is why we have a Liberty Bell and a Statue of Liberty. Equality is a natural right and a promise of our country but it cannot be our animating principle. Equality is the animating principle to the Left however. Socialism, Marxism, Communism; all promise equality while the modern Left in America pushes social justice and fairness. You don’t hear Barack Obama talk about prosperity or individual liberty or responsibility your hear him talk about "fairness," "collective redemption" and “shared prosperity.”

Does Barack Obama count?
Obama, FDR and the Second Bill of Rights - Bloomberg

Well, to begin with Cass is not being truthful in the opening. The president hardly “emphasizes the importance of free enterprise.” He emphasizes “you didn’t build that”and ”spread the wealth around,” Nor does he “reject equality of result” because all he talks about is “pay their fair share” and “shared prosperity.”

This is FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights by the way (with a partial list of modern government programs and bureaucracies that support them). All of these the Left seeks to expand regardless of cost, effectiveness or that they are bankrupting the country.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
(Labor Dept)
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
(minimum wage laws, living wage argument, food stamps)
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
(farm subsidies, Ag Dept)
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
The right of every family to a decent home.
(Sec 8, Community reinvestment Act, Sub-prime loans, Fanny and Freddie mortgage securities)
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
(Medicaid, Obamacare, HHS)
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
(Social security, Medicare, unemployment compensation)
The right to a good education.
(student loan guaranties, Dept of Education, and $$$$$)

One several nice discussions we had on the topic.

There isn’t one economic argument for the minimum wage. How is whacking off the lower rungs of the economic ladder or making labor more expensive economically prudent?

Milton Friedman in under a minutes explains:

Philly, please remember that I am talking about Leftism, If something I said doesn't apply to your views I'd love to hear that. But by the same standard, please don't throw things back at me that I didn't say. I didn't say there is no role for a government safety net. No need to pay taxes. I didn't say that government intervention is never needed to end systemic inequality. I didn't say that inequality doesn't exist.

I am not even sure I want to bother replying to this post. My entire argument has been that you lack an understanding about that the Left is about, and your idea was to dig deeper and specifically define just how wrong you are about what people on the left believe in? I don't get it. I'm not going to go through and try to correct you one by one on each way you are wrong. Let me just say this: this proves why you are so difficult to talk to. You have no idea what anyone is saying to you. Either you lack an understanding of this discourse or are willfully ignorant and would prefer to paint your opponents as strawmen who want the government to take money from rich people and give it to them.

Seriously, you're acting as if Al Sharpton and a kid from Howard University are the epitome of everything everyone on the left believes in. But yeah, hey, correct you if you're wrong about me personally, right!

What an asinine way to handle an argument. You basically said this: I'm going to tell you what I assume you believe in because EVERYONE ON THE LEFT BELIEVES THIS AND THAT'S A TRUE FACT, but let me know where you differ from the Big Bad Left!

And let's be clear: you saying that North Korea is a perfect example of liberty vs. equality is laughably, almost reprehensibly, FUCKING STUPID.

 

[PhilsFan]

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero. But you can't tell people that anymore because common sense is now deemed "mean."

Didn't I just say in my post "If we govern with the idea that if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps you're going to succeed and that if you're poor you didn't, we're going to ignore plenty of major problems in this country."

Yet here you go, saying if only people did the common sense thing and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps everything would be fine. Either they're too lazy or stupid to do it, right? Either they lack the common sense or the American work ethic to accomplish this?

I'm really, really tempted to just tell you to fuck off after these two embarrassing recent posts. Please prove me wrong.

 

[Irvine511]

Not that I'm necessarily helping things, but the tone in here has gotten uncomfortable.

I'm going to step out.

 

[Diemen]

Not that I'm necessarily helping things, but the tone in here has gotten uncomfortable.

And/or unnecessarily hostile. There are better ways to express frustration or even vehement disagreement than:

And let's be clear: you saying that North Korea is a perfect example of liberty vs. equality is laughably, almost reprehensibly, FUCKING STUPID.

or

I'm really, really tempted to just tell you to fuck off after these two embarrassing recent posts.

or

and it hurts your argument/makes you sounds like a dick.

Given that no one involved here is new to FYM, by now we should have a pretty good idea of other posters' debate tactics, and ratcheting up the personal digs/aggression isn't going to help suddenly change anyone's mind, and only serves to make the place more confrontational.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I am not even sure I want to bother replying to this post. My entire argument has been that you lack an understanding about that the Left is about, and your idea was to dig deeper and specifically define just how wrong you are about what people on the left believe in? I don't get it. I'm not going to go through and try to correct you one by one on each way you are wrong. Let me just say this: this proves why you are so difficult to talk to. You have no idea what anyone is saying to you. Either you lack an understanding of this discourse or are willfully ignorant and would prefer to paint your opponents as strawmen who want the government to take money from rich people and give it to them.

Seriously, you're acting as if Al Sharpton and a kid from Howard University are the epitome of everything everyone on the left believes in. But yeah, hey, correct you if you're wrong about me personally, right!

What an asinine way to handle an argument. You basically said this: I'm going to tell you what I assume you believe in because EVERYONE ON THE LEFT BELIEVES THIS AND THAT'S A TRUE FACT, but let me know where you differ from the Big Bad Left!

And let's be clear: you saying that North Korea is a perfect example of liberty vs. equality is laughably, almost reprehensibly, FUCKING STUPID.

Didn't I just say in my post "If we govern with the idea that if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps you're going to succeed and that if you're poor you didn't, we're going to ignore plenty of major problems in this country."

Yet here you go, saying if only people did the common sense thing and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps everything would be fine. Either they're too lazy or stupid to do it, right? Either they lack the common sense or the American work ethic to accomplish this?

I'm really, really tempted to just tell you to fuck off after these two embarrassing recent posts. Please prove me wrong.

 

[Dfit00]

The nature of the problem in the topic in this thread is that people expect too much from the government.
Stop wishing for perfect conditions and that the government is responsible for your well being.
When people adopt this "new" way of thinking, discussions such as this one will be inexistent.

 

[PhilsFan]

 

[U2DMfan]

That was a great episode.

Maybe we can all agree to agree on that.

 

[Jive Turkey]

The nature of the problem in the topic in this thread is that people expect too much from the government.
Stop wishing for perfect conditions and that the government is responsible for your well being.
When people adopt this "new" way of thinking, discussions such as this one will be inexistent.

Is this meant to be wise? Because you really aren't saying anything profound, but seem to think you are

 

[INDY500]

I am not even sure I want to bother replying to this post. My entire argument has been that you lack an understanding about that the Left is about, and your idea was to dig deeper and specifically define just how wrong you are about what people on the left believe in? I don't get it. I'm not going to go through and try to correct you one by one on each way you are wrong. Let me just say this: this proves why you are so difficult to talk to. You have no idea what anyone is saying to you. Either you lack an understanding of this discourse or are willfully ignorant and would prefer to paint your opponents as strawmen who want the government to take money from rich people and give it to them.

Seriously, you're acting as if Al Sharpton and a kid from Howard University are the epitome of everything everyone on the left believes in. But yeah, hey, correct you if you're wrong about me personally, right!

What an asinine way to handle an argument. You basically said this: I'm going to tell you what I assume you believe in because EVERYONE ON THE LEFT BELIEVES THIS AND THAT'S A TRUE FACT, but let me know where you differ from the Big Bad Left!

And let's be clear: you saying that North Korea is a perfect example of liberty vs. equality is laughably, almost reprehensibly, FUCKING STUPID.

Except from President Obama to radical environmentalist to Occupy Wall St I can quote my strawmen and that's the meanest thing one can do... quote a Leftist. Call it social justice, leveling the playing field, fairness, shared prosperity, environmental justice or income inequality; what motivates and propels the Left is inequality of outcome and the desire to solve it through welfare-state egalitarianism.

Need proof?

Here we are in the 2nd term of our most leftist president and what do we have? What a surprise; bigger and more intrusive government, 4 straight years of $trillion deficits, higher taxes on wealth and calls for them to go even higher, a scheme to transfer healthcare decisions from the physician's office to a panel of masterminds in Washington D.C. and record numbers of Americans receiving food stamps, and unemployment insurance and Medicaid and S.S. Disability. Ya gotta spread the wealth around right?

I guess I can't blame you for throwing in the towel.

Maybe I'll start a new thread: why can't people on the Left converse without profanity?

 

[BoMac]

I find your characterization of Obama as the "most leftist" president to be amusing and detached from reality.

 

[cobl04]

a scheme to transfer healthcare decisions from the physician's office to a panel of masterminds in Washington D.C.

But this is okay if it's abortion, right?

 

[anitram]

He'd just prefer that it was panels of masterminds at insurance companies making health decisions for everyone.

 

[Diemen]

what motivates and propels the Left is inequality of outcome and the desire to solve it through welfare-state egalitarianism.

It's awfully convenient of you to just decide that "the Left" is a homogenous mass that engages in lockstep groupthink.

Here we are in the 2nd term of our most leftist president

You state this as if it were fact, without actually supplying any facts.

a bigger and more intrusive government,

Well if this is one of the facts then I suppose you could've said the exact same thing during the second Bush term. Hey... why weren't you up in arms then?

4 straight years of $trillion deficits,

When you need to take immediate action to save the country from the 2nd great depression, you will incur some deficits.

higher taxes on wealth and calls for them to go even higher,

So high they would return to the same level back when... we had a balanced budget and the rich were still increasing their wealth at a much higher rate than anyone else in the country.

a scheme to transfer healthcare decisions from the physician's office to a panel of masterminds in Washington D.C.

This is just flat out lazy and inaccurate. Besides, you seem to be arguing that you'd rather have healthcare decisions made by those who stand to profit the most from those decisions.

Maybe I'll start a new thread: why can't people on the Left converse without profanity?

Take away the profanity and he still has some excellent points you've failed to address.

 

[digitize]

Off of the current topic, but, Indy, I owe you an apology for never responding to your long post directed at me many moons ago. Life gets busy and forum-dissertations take a back seat.

 

[maycocksean]

He'd just prefer that it was panels of masterminds at insurance companies making health decisions for everyone.

Bingo.

This idea that you and your physician are making these decisions together hasn't been true for a long time.

 

[martha]

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero.

For real? Is this sarcasm?

And if your spouse gets laid off? or develops a debilitating disease? or your child has disabilities?

The scenarios that could destroy this fantasy could go on and on. Was there any research to support this?