Jump to content

Menu

cornopean

Members
  • Posts

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cornopean

  1. I too have thought about this. I still raise the question of the territories tho. What would have happened when the western territories wanted to become states? I guess the citizens of each of these territories could decide for themselves whether to join the union or the confederacy but there still is the potential for war here. Certainly the leaders of the south did not regard slavery in a positive light. Nevertheless, the slave power was very powerful. It's just really hard to say how slavery would have eventually been eliminated. THAT it would have happened is pretty clear. HOW it would have happened is more difficult. This is certainly true. Alexis deToqueville noted this in his book Democracy In America.
  2. I too have thought about this. I still raise the question of the territories tho. What would have happened when the western territories wanted to become states? I guess the citizens of each of these territories could decide for themselves whether to join the union or the confederacy but there still is the potential for war here. Certainly the leaders of the south did not regard slavery in a positive light. Nevertheless, the slave power was very powerful. It's just really hard to say how slavery would have eventually been eliminated. THAT it would have happened is pretty clear. HOW it would have happened is more difficult. This is certainly true. Alexis deToqueville noted this in his book Democracy In America.
  3. btw....the blog is up and running again. well this is a powerful argument and believe me I feel the force of it. my only justification is that the politicians who passed this legislation intended it for people like me. I also intend to take social security one day even tho I wish the program were eliminated. I can't see any way around this.
  4. It's purely an economic decision. It helps our bottom line. I would write my legislator and tell him to nix the program in a second if I thought I it would work.
  5. the funny thing is......the politicians who pass such legislation intend them to be used by middle class folk. The same thing happened recently with the SCHIP program. It was meant for people who were quite well off. I never sneer at people. I do feel that wealth redistribution is immoral. Noone has offered any reasons to the contrary. I am not entirely at peace with us taking WIC. Frankly, I just look at our bottom line.....and if they offer it, we take it. but I ain't entirely happy about it.
  6. I suspect slavery would have been eliminated without a war; it just would have taken longer. are you taking into consideration the 600,000 plus lives lost? of course, Lincoln had no way of knowing this.
  7. the sad fact is that it is the very welfare you advocate that causes these problems. Welfare traps people and holds them down. The War on Poverty has created more poverty than it eliminated. actually it created a whole different kind of poverty. The poverty we see now is generation after generation of the same people on poverty. They grow used to it as a way of life. Welfare makes people comfortable in their poverty. That is a major problem with welfare. George Will writes; But no one knows how to stop it [poverty]. Anyway, spending at least $6.6 trillion on poverty-related programs in the four decades since President Johnson declared the "war on poverty" is not "nothing." In fact, it has purchased a new paradigm of poverty . That new "paradigm" is what I am talking about.
  8. Yes we qualify for all those things and I don't think we are the better for them. Since the tax code takes from the rich, it is taking money from the most productive members of society. That money is then processed thru a hugely inefficient bureaucracy and given to people who often don't need it. We just bought a brand new house. why do we need WIC? but since they meant if for us, we take it. also....now that we have WIC the temptation is huge to waste the stuff we were given since we never paid for it. I just found a full bottle of milk that our little boy never drank. Oh well.....who cares......we never paid for it. just dump, fill it up again, and waste some more. oh....and the more kids we have, the more milk we get from the govt teat. and we are having kids fast and furious:auto::auto: The perverse incentives this program creates are terrible.
  9. In my class today, we made two columns. The first column was called "force em". The second column was "let em". These are the two options that Lincoln had in 1861 for dealing with the South. He could FORCE the south back into the union or he could LET them become their own sovereign nation. As we added up the advantages disadvantages of either side, we seemed to agree that "let em" was the more advantageous course of action. What do you think? The advantages of "let em" are: trade could continue between the two countries; war could be avoided; the fugitive slave law could be eliminated; the south could get rid of the unfair tariffs; The advantages of "force em" are: slavery could be eliminated; the country would be kept one;
  10. now really now....did I ever assert that charity = theft? my position is that when one person forcibly takes money from another person, that is theft no matter what he does with the money once he has taken it. giving it to a starving person does not justify the theft. nor does the fact that duly elected officials due the stealing. It's still theft. we get WIC. :001_smile: Frankly, I want to eliminate all suffering on the entire globe. but we have to be realistic about what is the best way to do this. I would support some kind of negative income tax as Charles Murray suggests here. This plan gets rid of the bureaucracy, keeps people from utter destitution, keeps the govt from trying to manipulate society via welfare payments, provides a greater role for private charity to operate which is always preferable to govt "charity" places a limit on the amount people will get.
  11. oh, I get you now. I agree completely. I thot you were advocating some kind of govt regulation of corporations to stop this. I agree it is unethical. I just don't think the govt should try to do something about it. I do not believe the business owners of this land are obligated to provide people with the standard of living they desire. do you?
  12. I think the point was that charity is voluntary or it's not charity. When the govt reaches into my pocket and gives it to someone else, they are not, for all that, charitable or generous. They are thieves. to the best of my knowledge, no one in our govt claimed that Iraq had nukes. he did? where?
  13. I guess I just don't see what right anyone else has to tell a board of directors how they spend their money. I might not like it....but it's their business. If people don't want to work there, they leave and go elsewhere.
  14. I don't know that anyone defends the Iraq invasion claiming that the 9-11 attackers were from Iraq. I agree. if we fight them, I don't expect them to cheer us. why catch Bin Laden? the guy is holed up in a cave somewhere. we need to fight the war on terror. Bin Laden is only a small part of that. Right now, Al Qaeda is saying that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and I think we should take them at their word and fight them there.
  15. First, you are only the second liberal I know that supports the FairTax. Excellent. but why do you feel guilt over that?
  16. evidently Wright believes that the black mind works differently than the white mind. wiki says this; At a news conference the following April 29, Barack Obama decried Wright's latest remarks as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth". [50] He accused his former pastor of exploiting racism and "giving comfort to those who prey on hate." He characterized Wright’s National Press Club appearance as a “spectacle†and described its content as "outrageous" and "destructive." and what credit would you give to a pastor that believes the US govt created and spread AIDS to kill off black folk? and people still believe that Obama is going to transcend racial controversies.
  17. I certainly had no intention of denigrating the board. Sorry if I did so. But seriously, noone is giving facts to refute my claims here. It is one thing to simply take refuge in the fact that dozens of good economists support Obama so he must be good. but answer some simply questions? Does Barack want to raise taxes? Will taxes better our economy? have taxes ever bettered an economy? what did taxes do for our falling economy when FDR became pres? It is well known that FDR tripled tax rates and made a depression into a GREAT depression. just years earlier, Warren Harding had a crash equally as bad as the crash of 1929. but b/c he did nothing and actually lowered tax rates, the economic distress was soon over and the economy was clicking along again. Ronald Reagan did a similar thing in 1987. and we have reams of data that low tax countries prosper and in many cases see no loss in tax revenue. Read this exchange between Charlie Gibson and Barack; 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. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free. OBAMA: And you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible. I believe in the principle that you pay as you go. And, you know, you don't propose tax cuts, unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending, unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy. And it's going to change when I'm president of the United States. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up. OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we got have a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right. And if we can stabilize that market, and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well. And once again, I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.
  18. voted in favor of partial birth abortions minors don't need permission to get abortions zero percent rating from NRLC voted against free trade agreement with Columbia voted to allow people to sue the telecomm companies when they help fight terror. my point was that knowing a person to be educated tells you virtually nothing about the person's character or wisdom.
  19. First, the middle class is not the group that needs a tax cut. Bruce Bartlett notes that people making below 40k/yr pay virtually no income taxes at all when you factor into the equation what they get from the govt. It is the rich who need the tax cut. Second, do you think Clinton's tax hikes caused the balanced budget, surplus, etc. or did the internet bubble have something to do with that? I know that it sounds so nice to raise the taxes on these people but one has to think like an economist. and raising the taxes on the most productive members of society is not economically wise. It may make us feel good but their are unintended consequences of such actions. admittedly, lowering taxes on the rich isn't likely to win elections. alas. if only people could understand facts and interpret data. :(
  20. the man attended a church with a racist pastor for 20 years. then he tells us that he can't disassociate himself from him. you are passionate about such a man?
  21. what does "open" mean? this man was voted the most liberal senator. educated? many of the worst dictators are highly educated. same with thinking. and why is Obama more interesting than Hillary or McCain? differences between McCain and Obama. 1. McCain supports school vouchers; Obama does not. 2. McCain will cut the corporate income tax; Obama will raise it. 3. McCain will support free trade; Obama will restrict trade. 4. McCain will fight terrorists; Obama will talk to them. 5. McCain will nominate judges who care about the Constitution; Obama will nominate judges who care about liberalism. 6. McCain will fight pork spending; Obama will not.
  22. Mrs. M.....are you referring to me? I haven't refused to answer anyone but in the blizzard of posts, I might have missed your questions. But, I must add, that I started this thread with a question for Obama supporters. How are Obama's proposed tax hikes going to help our economy? If someone asnwered this, I missed it. Could you repost it. If you have questions for me, why not start a thread for McCain supporters. ?:001_smile: I will be happy to field any questions and I am a McCain supporter.
  23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley#Disputed_quotation
  24. but this is a measure of income equality. this doesn't tell you actual wealth. if everyone makes $5/hour then by the measure you gave above, we are very well off. but what if some people make $5/hour and others make $500/hour and a few make $5mil/hour........which society is better off? statistics on income inequality are virtually useless. excellent. I see no problem here. b/c it seems to me that people who complain about the wealth gap or income inequality are a hairs breadth from envy. actually, according to Danko's book, The Millionaire Next Door * Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
  25. I beleive you on this. do you want us to win this war? on Sept. 12, 2001.....would you have believed me if I had told you that for seven years, we would not be attacked? would you feel more secure if Saddam was still in power giving aid, intel, and weapons to terrorists? I too mourn the lives lost but they will be wasted if we pull out now. and do you seriously beleive that the Iraqis were better off when Saddam was in power?
×
×
  • Create New...