Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

[seedload]

I care about what is actually true.

I think this Jccarlton character is planting the seeds of fear and hate, free from any connection to reality, in the hopes that someone with strong emotions and a weak mind will kill the president.

So silly ... care about what is true... would be funny if...

Seriously, if we are going to moderate anything on this forum, comments like this should be moderated. You can't accuse someone of something like this without any evidence in any kind of reasonable discussion.

regards

[ladajo]

So, on an interesting note, I had a seminar with George Will this evening. What a character, very funny man. He made some interesting points regarding the state of america and its politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will

[rjaypeters]

Do tell, please...

[Diogenes]

So, on an interesting note, I had a seminar with George Will this evening. What a character, very funny man. He made some interesting points regarding the state of america and its politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will

George Will is AWESOME!!!!

[ladajo]

He posited serveral things. One of which was Social Security means testing. He also feels that US Culture has developed a lack of personal responsibility. Ie: Accept your own actions as your own problem. He walked the path from initial playground lawsuits for child sinjuries in the 1960's to more current ones such as the famous McDonald's cup of coffee between the legs. His point seemed to be along the lines of Friedman's morality dilemma. If you give folks free stuff, they will want to protect the mechanism and get more.
He also talked about what he called "the scene of the crime". Where big government drilled in via the National Recovery Administration and convicted a local businessman in New Jersey for price cutting, and how that helped cement the trend we are on with a welfare state.

"In less than one year after the formulation of the NRA Jacob Maged, a Jersey City, New Jersey tailor, garnered national interest after failing to comply with the Code Authority. On April 20, 1934 Maged, a Polish immigrant and father of four, was sentenced to a 100 dollar fine and 30 days in the county jail after he pressed a suit for 35 cents, 5 cents below the 40 cent price floor set by the NRA. The New York Times story headline on April 21, 1934 ran, “TAILOR GETS 30 DAYS FOR CUTTING PRICES.” "

He also argued that all is not lost, because at the core is "American Exceptionalism", and that the populace is taking notice and beginning to force action by government to control itself. In this he used the oft quoted observation by Winston Churchill regarding Americans always finding the right answer once all others are exhausted.
Overall he called the issue a national lack of self governance. All in all, I thought he made a good argument. While I did not fully agree with all he said, none-the less it was an evening well spent.

[Jccarlton]

He posited serveral things. One of which was Social Security means testing. He also feels that US Culture has developed a lack of personal responsibility. Ie: Accept your own actions as your own problem. He walked the path from initial playground lawsuits for child sinjuries in the 1960's to more current ones such as the famous McDonald's cup of coffee between the legs. His point seemed to be along the lines of Friedman's morality dilemma. If you give folks free stuff, they will want to protect the mechanism and get more.
He also talked about what he called "the scene of the crime". Where big government drilled in via the National Recovery Administration and convicted a local businessman in New Jersey for price cutting, and how that helped cement the trend we are on with a welfare state.

"In less than one year after the formulation of the NRA Jacob Maged, a Jersey City, New Jersey tailor, garnered national interest after failing to comply with the Code Authority. On April 20, 1934 Maged, a Polish immigrant and father of four, was sentenced to a 100 dollar fine and 30 days in the county jail after he pressed a suit for 35 cents, 5 cents below the 40 cent price floor set by the NRA. The New York Times story headline on April 21, 1934 ran, “TAILOR GETS 30 DAYS FOR CUTTING PRICES.” "

He also argued that all is not lost, because at the core is "American Exceptionalism", and that the populace is taking notice and beginning to force action by government to control itself. In this he used the oft quoted observation by Winston Churchill regarding Americans always finding the right answer once all others are exhausted.
Overall he called the issue a national lack of self governance. All in all, I thought he made a good argument. While I did not fully agree with all he said, none-the less it was an evening well spent.

Sounds like it was a good session The problem with all that "free stuff" is that it isn't really free. When a prog endorses yet another "free" program it means that the forgotten one, you, is going to pay for it. The real problem is that once the program is in place it is almost impossible to free yourself from it.

[ladajo]

And in the words of Margaret Thatcher, "…Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

Probably one of the most misquoted quotes around

In my travels around the world, I have come to the conclusion that what I call "free stuff economies" are rampant and rising.

Flat tax. What a concept. Working for your un-employment money. What a concept.

Mr. Will discussed the curve of tax burden as it stands in the US. One of the great social myths is that the rich get out of taxes. He commented that the bottom two quintiles are net negative in taxes, the middle quintile pays less than 5%, and the top quintile pays more than half of the burden. Goes right along with the discussion from another thread. He maintains that this is shifting even further to the right every time congress "fixes" the tax code. His fear is that the wealthy are the primary investment mechanism, and thus a key part of the motor that grows the economy and jobs. The more they are burdened, the less they will invest.

Check out this link for Tax Burdens:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collect ... bution.cfm

Mr. Will also pointed out that the 1966 Coleman Study applies just as much today as it did in 1966. He contends that the downward trend of the American Family construct is doing great damage to our future.
http://ciser.cornell.edu/ASPs/search_at ... DTITLE=606

I wanted to ask him his thoughts on gay marriage and gay rights in this respect, but did not get a chance. Maybe some other time.

It really was good fun to listen to him tear up the Woodrow Wilson and forward social bent government agenda, and also take shots at the great lie of social security and medicare/medicaid. See above Thatcher quote.

[JLawson]

And in the words of Margaret Thatcher, "…Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

Probably one of the most misquoted quotes around :D

In my travels around the world, I have come to the conclusion that what I call "free stuff economies" are rampant and rising.

Flat tax. What a concept. Working for your un-employment money. What a concept.

I'm kind of fond of Heinlein, myself...

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."

I think we're going through a spell of "bad luck", myself...

[ladajo]

Mr. Heinlein may be right when considering my above statement:

One of the great social myths is that the rich get out of taxes.

Especially when you consider this evidence:

Check out this link for Tax Burdens:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collect ... bution.cfm

So why is it when you get most any random dude, the first words out of his mouth are that the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Why do they keep getting out if it.
I would venture that he like many others is an uniformed lemming looking to protect his free stuff.
I am not rich by any means, comfortable, but not rich. And I do not see me family's comfort as a function of my income, I see it as a function of my self governance.

[krenshala]

So why is it when you get most any random dude, the first words out of his mouth are that the rich need to pay a fair share in taxes. Why do they keep getting out if it.

Well, if those charts are accurate then "he" is right ... they do need to pay their fair share.

I would venture that he like many others is an uniformed lemming looking to protect his free stuff.

Its one thing to help someone that really needs the help. Its quite another when my income is reduced just so someone else doesn't have to be employed. (I'm one of those wacky types that immediately found a job, even if it wasn't the greatest one, when unemployed simply to have a paycheck ... I suppose I could have played the system but it never even occurred to me. I wonder how much more I could have been making if I'd done it?)

I am not rich by any means, comfortable, but not rich. And I do not see me family's comfort as a function of my income, I see it as a function of my self governance.

[ladajo]

Not sure which way you mean this:

Well, if those charts are accurate then "he" is right ... they do need to pay their fair share.

The chart indicate that the upper end is getting comparitively raped.

[Diogenes]

Not sure which way you mean this:

Well, if those charts are accurate then "he" is right ... they do need to pay their fair share.

The chart indicate that the upper end is getting comparitively raped.

He's implying that they need to pay less, so that they are paying their "fair share."

It's a joke.

[ladajo]

Ahh, the nuance escaped me on first pass. Thanks.

What scares me even more in retrospect is that the mainstream press is ignoring these government published numbers about tax load distribution.
In fact, it even makes Obama look sillier in that he touts about how the rich need to pay more, because they are not paying enough.

Forced wealth redistribution...what was that called again?

[hanelyp]

Forced wealth redistribution...what was that called again?

Walter Williams calls forcing one person to work for the good of another slavery. Sounds like a good definition to me.

[JLawson]

Forced wealth redistribution...what was that called again? :D

'Progressive Thinking', also known as 'social justice'.

I get the feeling that a lot of the 'progressives', when they realize their 'equality' scheming isn't going to bear fruit (or at least not the sort they want) are going to be getting pretty unhappy with the folks who won't give them what they think they're owed. (Take a look at Michael Moore - he's saying that weath is a collective thing, and the wealthy don't 'own' their money.)

What’s happened is is that we’ve allowed a vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people. . . . They’re sitting on the money, they’re using it for their own – they’re putting it someplace else, they have no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We’ve allowed them to take that. That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. . . . I think we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates.

Don't think you'll be seeing him passing out the Benjamins - at least not without protest.

One meme that seems to be going around is that the 'superrich' are to blame for the state of the economy. Who are the 'superrich'? The folks in the top 10% of earnings, which (at least according to Mother Jones) hits right at about $167k.

If you own a small business, pull in $200k - you're the new class enemy. Doesn't matter if you've got employees, in the interest of 'fairness' you should throw your money to the have-nots.

Sooner or later they're going to realize that so-called 'social justice' and fairness have a cost far out of proportion to any presumed benefit, and the surest way to keep the poor poor is to insist on 'fairness' and penalizing the people who actually provide jobs is a stupid game. This class-warfare garbage is chewing us alive.

I'm starting to understand the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement folks a bit more. Maybe as a species, if we keep listening to these clowns, we DON'T have what it takes to survive...