Bama, it's more than that. Some people seem toact as if the American system is a given, a natural order. It's not. It's a choice. It may be the best chouce, it may not, but our system is one of an almost infinite number of options, which we have chosen because it is what we feel reflects our particular priorities. But, like every system, it benefits some people, some abilities, some segments of society, and there are others who would be better served by another system. That is not to say these people are less American, less deserving of the benefits of their society, just that the status quo, however permissive of personal improvement you might feel it is, cannot benefit all people equally. Short of utopia, no system can. So beyond Unmet Public Goods, the idea that our government plays a role in our ability to make money extends way beyond providing a safe environment in which to do so, but it is also entirely responsible for us maintaining a system which benefits some people more than others. Is it unreasonable for those who benefit the most from a system to also, if only as a relection of the fact that they do benefit from our choice, to support that system at a proportional rate? And that that support be partially distributed to those who benefot less? Additionally, as any economist will tell you, economic systems like ours essentially maintain and incrase the status quo. The original democratics, the Athenians recognozed this relationship between the choice of system a society has and those it benefits. The Athenians had a law whereby the richest were expected, not at a standardized rate, but when called upon, to provide for the city at a very hig rate: warships, buildings, etc. If they ever felt the burden placed upon them due to their wealth was too high, they could say so, and any other citizen could switch places with them, assume their assets income, and burdens.
Our system, despite its flaws, is much better than socialism, where there is NO incentive to work harder or be creative. Of course it will benefit those with the most talent- I wouldn't dare argue that point. But my point is this- we, no matter what happens- can not equalize outcomes without killing the golden goose. It just isn't morally correct to take something from me to pay for something you are unwilling to pay for yourself, which is what the Left has advocated for years. By having that power to take by fiat, you are basically saying the money is not the earner's, but what the govt. allows them to keep. And that is scary. Of course we should be charitable and give freely to the poor- I do. But telling me that if I don't pay my property taxes they are going to take what is mine, remove from it by deadly force and sell it is not charity. Charity comes from goodwill, not the barrel of a gun. I think our country has arrived at the point where citizens constantly pester our ruling class (we elect the same, old corrupt people to rule over us, again and again, don't get me started on that) with "what can you do for my group of people." What goodies can you bring home to me. How can you rob the wealth of someone else to give me something that I'd rather not have to work for to obtain. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions and let me tell you, with our ballooning budget and choking entitlement bill due, we're on an expressway to hell full of good intentions.
Before I respond, I'd first like to commend you on this post. If only you'd post like this more often. See, you can be hard line and very much in disagreement without reverting to invective, insults, and hyperbole. Secondly, the point I was making is that there are several thousand options, not just Hard Line Capitalism and Hard Line Socialism. Even between those two there are all kinds of shades in between. Thirdly, socialism has never really been tried. RUle of the Proletariat, in which each has gotten stuck, is itself an abortion of Marxist ( which i assume you meant-lack of incentive, etc.)doctrine if extended. Not that I think it could work as a pure form, partly because the Proletariats will almost never give up power willingly. But, fourth, it's not just talent. Our system is not a pure meritocracy. For one thing, it only rewards certain talents, and only those which are accompanied by other priorities. There are many great people in history who have contributed in incredible ways to human development who would have been lost and never heard from in ours. That's the point: I think you see us as an ideal rather than an option. From that perspective, coupled with a general distrust in authority ( which I share with you, and am surprised it doesn't affect your stance on the war more, given all the lying, screw ups, etc.) I can see how you see it as taking from us. But if you see the system as a choice rather than a given, you might see it differently.
If our society was a pure meritocracy, which I agree it is not, why would a talentless w**** like Brittney make millions whereas a talented Joshua Redman makes a mere pittiance by comparison? My point in all of this is that nothing is perfect. Perfection that can be achieved by humanity is a myth. As for the war, I'll just say that I'm concerned about the need for it (admittedly), but now that we are there, we should see it through to its logical conclusion.
bamaslammer - Brilliant post. What can be done about it? Why always blame the "Left" for taking money away, when the "Right" does it as well? Rumors state that GWB is going to focus on reforming social security and EXPANDING health care coverage during the Republican convention. Both sides do it. Both sides feed at the trough. Why can't a Republican-dominated government pass a budget bill for the coming fiscal year? Talent comes in a multitude of forms. If you know how to market yourself, sell yourself, etc., you're talented. That's why Britney Spears is a millionaire. That's also why William Hung makes more than Joshua Redman (whoever he is - sorry).
My father in law is a farmer. He really doesn't get any subsidies. It is only a small portion of farming that is subsidized.
The title of this thread is offensive in itself, presupposing that honesty is rare from Hillary Clinton.
She of the Rose Law Firm billing records.....Sure, she's honest. It's not offensive when it is the truth. Just ask her about how she turned a few thousand in cattle futures into a dump truck-load worth of money.
He is probably my favorite sax player besides Chris Potter, who plays with John Pattituci among others and Wayne Shorter. The "Young Lions" in jazz these days like Brad Meldhau, Redman, Potter, Pattitucci, etc. have really re-energized the genre.
Actually, we did ask her that. Perhaps you missed it, but a $50 million plus, near omnipotent investigation with subpoena power and the full force of the Justice Department, and run by a motivated group of political enemies, investigated those and every other allegation under the sun with an eye towards criminal prosecution, and found insufficient evidence of any criminal behavior at all. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/20/national/main234848.shtml They got nothing, and neither do you except for recycled hate-fuel-gossip from the American Spectator. Let it go, bamaslammer, it's over.
But she never told the truth on it. I was just responded to Woofer's comment that intimating that she is untruthful is offensive. When it is the truth, it can't be offensive.
Yes, from now on, please only post NON-offensive thread titles....like "Republicans have to think of new way to steal Florida"...
