0.1% of tax payers pay over half of the capital gains tax

[mdeminico]

And by Republicans you mean some textbook definition and not the actual current day Republican Party.

Yeah, today's republicans are the Democrats of 40 years ago. John F Kennedy would have been a Republican today.

Everything's shifted left. Today's Democrats are essentially Socialists.

Hopefully that's changing once people realize what the heck is going on...

[KitemanSA]

The leftist democrats are not to be trusted on any promise of fiscal responsibility.

That's true.

Not true. It is just that they have a VASTLY different definition of "fiscal responsibility" as sane people.

[GIThruster]

The whole idea of a "promise" about the future is incompatible with the democratic process. Decisions made now do not dictate the decisions in the future, unless a binder of sorts is placed on like the trigger for the super-comittee, and even then we see people trying to thwart that trigger.

Anyone who makes a promise about future spending, such as "we won't raise your income tax" is speaking past presumptuously--they're lying and they know it. Present congress has almost no control over what future congress will do.

[MSimon]

The rightist republicans are not to be trusted on any promise of fiscal responsibility.

When It Comes To Spending Cuts, Republicans And Democrats Are Really The Same

[Diogenes]

The rightist republicans are not to be trusted on any promise of fiscal responsibility.

When It Comes To Spending Cuts, Republicans And Democrats Are Really The Same

I wouldn't say that the "rightest" Republicans are not to be trusted, it is primarily the middle of the road Republicans which are not to be trusted. Every time the "rightest" Republicans try to cut something, they get a lot of grief (and opposition) from the "let's get along" crowd. Why are we still funding the NEA?

I like Perry's comments about eliminating three departments. I would certainly not stop there.

Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, Eric Cantor, etc are also willing to make deep cuts to the beast if they could ever get the votes.

[MSimon]

The rightist republicans are not to be trusted on any promise of fiscal responsibility.

When It Comes To Spending Cuts, Republicans And Democrats Are Really The Same

I wouldn't say that the "rightest" Republicans are not to be trusted, it is primarily the middle of the road Republicans which are not to be trusted. Every time the "rightest" Republicans try to cut something, they get a lot of grief (and opposition) from the "let's get along" crowd. Why are we still funding the NEA?

I like Perry's comments about eliminating three departments. I would certainly not stop there.

Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, Eric Cantor, etc are also willing to make deep cuts to the beast if they could ever get the votes.

Funny thing is that it is only the severely Culturally Conservative and Hard Core Libertarians (the Pauls father and son) who can be counted on. And they are at odds on so many other issues I despair of the two sides ever coming together.

The libertarians do have the better of the argument when it comes to consistency. The Cultural Conservatives still want to mold society with government action. So they fall prey to "well if you are going to use government to do this why not use it to do that?" And the ground under the Cultural Conservatives shifts. The libertarians say: "Leave people to their own devices as long as they leave others alone." (note: this is not a dissertation on the specific meaning of the attitudes, just a general description). Thus the Culturals say "Dept of Education? Useless." "The DEA? Well Drugs are a problem - maybe we should keep that one." With the liberal response: "And you mean to tell me that education is not a problem? Or the state of medicine? Or Energy?" And you are off to the races.

The Libertarians (I'm not referring to the Party) are more consistent - they ALL must go. With that you need no (disputable) criteria for picking and choosing.

[Diogenes]

The rightist republicans are not to be trusted on any promise of fiscal responsibility.

When It Comes To Spending Cuts, Republicans And Democrats Are Really The Same

I wouldn't say that the "rightest" Republicans are not to be trusted, it is primarily the middle of the road Republicans which are not to be trusted. Every time the "rightest" Republicans try to cut something, they get a lot of grief (and opposition) from the "let's get along" crowd. Why are we still funding the NEA?

I like Perry's comments about eliminating three departments. I would certainly not stop there.

Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, Eric Cantor, etc are also willing to make deep cuts to the beast if they could ever get the votes.

Funny thing is that it is only the severely Culturally Conservative and Hard Core Libertarians (the Pauls father and son) who can be counted on. And they are at odds on so many other issues I despair of the two sides ever coming together.

The libertarians do have the better of the argument when it comes to consistency. The Cultural Conservatives still want to mold society with government action. So they fall prey to "well if you are going to use government to do this why not use it to do that?" And the ground under the Cultural Conservatives shifts. The libertarians say: "Leave people to their own devices as long as they leave others alone." (note: this is not a dissertation on the specific meaning of the attitudes, just a general description). Thus the Culturals say "Dept of Education? Useless." "The DEA? Well Drugs are a problem - maybe we should keep that one." With the liberal response: "And you mean to tell me that education is not a problem? Or the state of medicine? Or Energy?" And you are off to the races.

The Libertarians (I'm not referring to the Party) are more consistent - they ALL must go. With that you need no (disputable) criteria for picking and choosing.

Cultural conservatives are like water. As Water diffusion into the air is directly proportional to heat, it exhibits a positive feedback effect, thereby warming the atmosphere. Once the density reaches a certain point, it forms clouds which flip the feedback effect from positive to negative.

The analogy here is that Cultural conservatives are for less government, not none. Conservatives are in agreement with Libertarians on reducing the size and scope of government to a certain point, at which Conservatives flip and thereafter become in opposition to Libertarian efforts to reduce it further.

The difference between the two philosophies is the "correct" level of government intrusion into the life of a free citizen. The conservative philosophy is that Libertarians underestimate the extent of injury to others caused by acts which Libertarians believe are wholly within the proper realm of the Individual's rights.

I am fond of pointing out examples such as people creating children they cannot feed or pay for, leaving others injured in the pocketbook for an individual's lack of self control.

[Diogenes]

Here is an example of to what I am referring.



Unemployed British man expecting 17th child

An unemployed man famous for fathering 14 children and being unable to support any of them has had another child and is expecting two more.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/838100 ... 17th-child

[MSimon]

The difference between the two philosophies is the "correct" level of government intrusion into the life of a free citizen. The conservative philosophy is that Libertarians underestimate the extent of injury to others caused by acts which Libertarians believe are wholly within the proper realm of the Individual's rights.

And most of that injury is emotional. If a man sits in his house and drinks all day what is it to me? For the Cul Cons it is: "but he is ruining his immortal soul". Which may be so. But what can government do? Ban alcohol? And besides the ways of ruining your soul are many and varied. Should government ban them all? Well OK. But the idea of limited government got lost in there some where.

BTW your characterization of libertarians as wanting no government is incorrect. What they want is a government that limits its activities to deterring and punishing fraud and coercion. The purpose of families is to take care of the rest. As each family sees fit.

[Diogenes]

The difference between the two philosophies is the "correct" level of government intrusion into the life of a free citizen. The conservative philosophy is that Libertarians underestimate the extent of injury to others caused by acts which Libertarians believe are wholly within the proper realm of the Individual's rights.

And most of that injury is emotional. If a man sits in his house and drinks all day what is it to me?

Presuming he doesn't get violent when drunk, and If he is wealthy enough to not ask anyone for anything, it does no one any injury other than setting a bad example for foolish poor people. Of course, if his alcoholism ends up putting him on the donor list for a liver, it takes one more liver off the market for someone possibly more deserving. But all in all, it looks to be unlikely that he is actually injuring anyone else.

For the Cul Cons it is: "but he is ruining his immortal soul". Which may be so. But what can government do? Ban alcohol? And besides the ways of ruining your soul are many and varied. Should government ban them all? Well OK. But the idea of limited government got lost in there some where.

I have no concern for his soul. Perhaps others do, but that certainly doesn't motivate me.

BTW your characterization of libertarians as wanting no government is incorrect. What they want is a government that limits its activities to deterring and punishing fraud and coercion. The purpose of families is to take care of the rest. As each family sees fit.

I agree. The Family is the only natural socialistic enterprise.

But what of the person who creates children for which they cannot pay? Libertarian philosophy says we should not stop them, yet to me the injury is quite apparent.

[Diogenes]

And here is another bit of news regarding this subject, that sneaked in under the door today:

Adolescent boys more prone to delinquency without a father

The study, undertaken by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the Faculty of Business and Economics, found that the presence of a father figure during adolescence was most likely to have a preventive effect on whether male youths engage in risk-taking and deviant behaviour.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-ado ... ather.html

[MSimon]

And low income fathers are more likely to get in trouble for drug use.

So on the one hand you want to punish for the good of society and on the other hand the long term effects of that punishment on society bother you.

I'm looking forward to your suggestions on how you intend to solve both problems. Assuming you intend to have a government solution.

So which are you most concerned about? Punishing for drug use or fatherless children?

I have watched the scene passing for some time now and I can't think of any meddling that government does that overall improves society. Because you can't just do one thing.

[KitemanSA]

But what of the person who creates children for which they cannot pay? Libertarian philosophy says we should not stop them, yet to me the injury is quite apparent.

Be specific, what is the injury and to whom?

[Diogenes]

But what of the person who creates children for which they cannot pay? Libertarian philosophy says we should not stop them, yet to me the injury is quite apparent.

Be specific, what is the injury and to whom?

The injury is to multiple people.

1. The Children. Insufficient funding, training and love. (Which they need, and to which they ought to be entitled.)
2. The Mothers. Insufficient funding, other support and love which they ought to get.
3. The Taxpayers. Stuck with the bill and the consequences of future adults without the proper moral training for our society. (i.e. Criminals\irresponsible citizens who will repeat the mistakes of their father towards their own children.)


Do you see no injury?

[Diogenes]

And low income fathers are more likely to get in trouble for drug use.

So on the one hand you want to punish for the good of society and on the other hand the long term effects of that punishment on society bother you.

You are equating drug law enforcement to being the cause of abandoned children. If it contributes at all, it's effects are completely inconsequential compared to the effects of the Government paying women for having children outside of marriage.

Why do you always worry about the splinter instead of the beam?

Did drug laws make the man in the above example have 17 children, none of whom he can pay for? Did Drugs or Drug laws do that?

I'm looking forward to your suggestions on how you intend to solve both problems. Assuming you intend to have a government solution.

My solution is to starve the government beast, and let the foolish suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions without the government enabling them to continue making bad decisions. Poverty exploded after Johnson started subsidizing it. Prior to that, people had more self control because they knew they would suffer if they did something stupid.

Johnson took away one of the negative feedback systems that helped stabilize society.

So which are you most concerned about? Punishing for drug use or fatherless children?

It is not an either\or. In fact, I see the two issues as not even related at all. It is the government pumping money into irresponsible households that is the root of fatherless children. Drugs only become an issue because fathers who ought to be out working to support those children have too much free time to get high.

I have watched the scene passing for some time now and I can't think of any meddling that government does that overall improves society. Because you can't just do one thing.

I have been repeating to you over and over for years, that Government funding of irresponsible behavior is largely contributing to the creation of a massive criminal class. Children without fathers (made possible because of government checks) are the predictable consequence of making the father's useful presence unnecessary.

For some unfathomable reason, you keep seeing this as a "drug issue."