Income Redistribution

[Binks]

I'm where you are Blaze, Hilary's far too Socialist for my liking. This sort of thing is a little silly because for a majority of people a sudden infusion of cash is not going to do anything but make them poorer in the end (lotto for example).

Yes, having money is one of the keys to gaining it, but so is knowing what to do to make money. With both you can get far (rich rich), with only money you're usually lucky to stay where you are, with only knowledge you can usually make some progress, with neither you're not well off. Most people who would be benefited by a program like this don't have the knowledge needed (in the economic area) so they'd be lucky if they managed to be benefited at all by something like this.

And I still hate Estate Taxes anyways, so that's another thing.

[Spero]

To death? Certainly not. Broadly, I'd like to agree with cut taxes, but to get behind what you're saying I'd have to know more detail - what taxes to cut, and what to cut & how to account for how there'll be less money coming in.

Fuggle, of course the taxes aren't literally killing me. Haha

Anyway, what taxes would I cut? Hmm...all of them. How to account for less money in government coffers? Well, government should not be in the school business, so money won't be needed for government schools. Of course, if I cut K-12 government schools, colleges would also stop getting public funds. Government should not be helping me retire, so there goes Social Security. The government certainly shouldn't be handling my health care, since it's having a hard enough time managing retirement, so Medicare is out. That saves a whole lot of money. Farm and alternative energy subsidies are not a proper function of government, so those are stopped. I could go on, but I think you get my point. Obviously, I'm doomed to perpetual disappointment in politics.

Behold, the negative side of the vast nexus of power that's been coalescing in the oval office over the last century ... because the way it should work is nothing too radical should happen because she'd need the support of congress ...

It's disappointing, then, that Democrats will likely have the majority in both houses. This is why Clinton scares me.

If I democrat wins, I think Obama may be the best choice, but I'm still hoping McCain can pull something off after all this time

McCain is in favor of trashing the First Amendment. He will never get my vote. Well, I can’t say never, but it’s highly unlikely.

[adciv]

Anyway, what taxes would I cut? Hmm...all of them. How to account for less money in government coffers? Well, government should not be in the school business, so money won't be needed for government schools. Of course, if I cut K-12 government schools, colleges would also stop getting public funds. Government should not be helping me retire, so there goes Social Security. The government certainly shouldn't be handling my health care, since it's having a hard enough time managing retirement, so Medicare is out. That saves a whole lot of money. Farm and alternative energy subsidies are not a proper function of government, so those are stopped. I could go on, but I think you get my point. Obviously, I'm doomed to perpetual disappointment in politics.

For the schools, I'm assuming you mean Federal, not State/Local, which is where most of the funding comes from in the first place. Right?

For the Farm and alternative energy, those get into some rather tricky things. A nation should be able to completely feed it's self. Some farm subsidies can help that (Note, this does not mean that all our current ones are needed). It should also be self sufficient in energy, which we definitely need to work on.

[Spero]

For the schools, I'm assuming you mean Federal, not State/Local, which is where most of the funding comes from in the first place. Right?

Right, sort of. I realize that most funding comes from state and local taxes, but I do not favor government schools at any level. If you sent your kid to a Catholic school, do you not expect him to receive some Catholic education? That seems reasonable, no? So why would you expect any different from a government school? As Fuggle says in his law, “power seeks to acquire more power.” Was there a clause I missed that said it doesn’t apply to government? If not, why would government schools not teach that government is great? The New Deal gets all sorts of attention (as it should), but I do not remember hearing Adam Smith’s name in economics class. I do not want kids growing up thinking that government is the answer. We already have too much of that in our society. Besides, it is not the government’s function to teach.

For the Farm and alternative energy, those get into some rather tricky things. A nation should be able to completely feed it's self. Some farm subsidies can help that (Note, this does not mean that all our current ones are needed). It should also be self sufficient in energy, which we definitely need to work on.

I believe we pay farmers not to grow food, so that should stop if I'm right. Also, we are growing more food on less soil than ever before. And god knows people in this country are not getting any skinnier. I think we can manage without government meddling. As for energy, if self-sufficiency was the goal, we’d be drilling in ANWR and off the continental shelf. Nope, it’s vote buying, plain and simple. Cut the funds and let the market handle it.

[ampersand]

Well, you're not going to get social security or Medicare removed or even revamped, because the people who vote the most are the elderly. So, politicians won't dare cross the AARP crowd, simply because they vote and their lobby is very effective. (Apparently politicians are the only people that are scared by the "get off my lawn" routine.)

I grew up on a farm. You have no idea how much the federal government has to and propped up the farmer. Even with corporation farming included, the profit margins are very slim, and without federal funding you're probably looking at an monopoly in the production of just about every crop you can think of. When there's drought conditions in non-critical regions of the country (just as they are now in the Southeast and West), the farm bill allows for the government to buy crops at rates that are higher than the grain bins would normally offer. They have Crop Reduction Programs that allow farmers to let certain fields lay fallow and they would get a set rate based off of how much they would had in yield if they took planted crops in that fallow field. In many cases, the federal government is the only place that would loan to family farms who would not have the preferred credit guidelines merited by banks and savings & loans. And if you try to remove one little part of this massive plan, it would probably end up raising prices for grocery items all over the place. For instance, there are federal subsidies that Frito-Lay take every year so that the price for that bag of chips and other junk food are lower than the price for veggies and other healthy foods.

In many other countries, just talking about removing subsidies or lowering the restrictions on American food imports have caused organized protests and riots from that countries farming. I remember reading how up in arms British cattlemen and shepards got over how to the government wanted to mandate changes to what they fed their livestock, which brought about the whole Mad Cow disease. Japanese farmers have been known to protest the import of American beef, to the point where they may have raided a facility and removed the tainted beef from the inspection plants. (This was in the late '90s, I believe.) Just recently, Japanese farmers staged a similiar riot on two fronts, against the USA and against Australia.

A lot of people wants the federal government to cut taxes and pair down the federal budget. I'm just saying the politicians' hands are much more tied up than everyone would think they are. And while American farmers or the elderly wouldn't riot, they have a lot more control than people think they do. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a stinking primary in Iowa every election so early on.

[Spero]

When there's drought conditions in non-critical regions of the country (just as they are now in the Southeast and West), the farm bill allows for the government to buy crops at rates that are higher than the grain bins would normally offer.

Why is the government buying crops at higher rates than the market?

They have Crop Reduction Programs that allow farmers to let certain fields lay fallow and they would get a set rate based off of how much they would had in yield if they took planted crops in that fallow field.

You're confirming that the government pays farmers not to grow food. Thank you.

For instance, there are federal subsidies that Frito-Lay take every year so that the price for that bag of chips and other junk food are lower than the price for veggies and other healthy foods.

And federal subsidies to battle obesity. Damn, I can’t wait for the next government program!

Are you trying to convince me that the farm subsidies should stick around? I suspect not. haha

And while American farmers or the elderly wouldn't riot, they have a lot more control than people think they do. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a stinking primary in Iowa every election so early on.

As I said, it’s vote buying. I don't have any illusions this stuff will actually go away, but I hope.

[adciv]

For instance, there are federal subsidies that Frito-Lay take every year so that the price for that bag of chips and other junk food are lower than the price for veggies and other healthy foods.

Source? This sounds, if true, like a law of unintentional consequences at worst.

[Blaze]

McCain is in favor of trashing the First Amendment. He will never get my vote. Well, I can’t say never, but it’s highly unlikely.

Yeah, but I don't worry as much about things I know the supreme court would never let someone get away with.

[Thorsman]

If I'm honest I really don't mind what Hillary Clinton's saying here. At the moment the US government really does treat its retirees like shit, compared to the way they're treated in the UK (I should know from living on both sides of the Atlantic). Far too many seniors in the US have to choose between food and medicine, and worse yet a lot of them also have to span their medications out beyond reasonable timescales because they can't afford the medicine. The talk of "they should've invested better" is really crass and doesn't solve the social ill that exists: helping to provide for people's retirement does. After all, for the most part these are decent people who have paid their dues all their life. Why shouldn't we use our taxes to show our gratitude, instead of making these seniors live like paupers? It really is shocking the way a lot of US seniors have to live.

[Spero]

Yeah, but I don't worry as much about things I know the supreme court would never let someone get away with.

First and foremost, congress and the president take oaths to uphold the Constitution, so no bill should be voted on or signed that they suspect is unconstitutional. Bush said at the signing that he thought the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill was unconstitutional. He signed because it was politically expedient. He was a coward.

Secondly, the Supreme Court is often wrong. And here is the decision.

Scalia writes in dissent (citations deleted):

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of “soft” money to fund “issue ads” that incumbents find so offensive.

Do not depend on the Supreme Court to right a wrong of congress. They may not do it.

EDIT: I want to add some of Thomas's dissent (citations deleted):

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Nevertheless, the Court today upholds what can only be described as the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War. With breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), directly targets and constricts core political speech, the “primary object of First Amendment protection.”

[Deacon]

but hey at least she's not Rudy.

Dude, I would take Giuliani over Clinton any day.

At the moment the US government really does treat its retirees like shit

WRONG. The US government shouldn't be treating its retirees at all. Instead, it has been pushed above and beyond the call of duty to provide medical care and retirement payments to people who failed to properly plan for their retirement. Retirement is not a right. If you want to quit working and hang out all day, awesome, but don't expect me to pay you for it.

The problem with Hillary's program is that it's taking billions of dollars in tax money and just giving it away. The other problem is that she's proposing an extreme socialist/communist program that's not even wearing a token veil of fairness. Instead, those people who actually did manage to scrimp and save and invest during their life are having the fruits of their life-long labors raided, plundered, and robbed by Hillary and handed over for free to people who have done nothing to earn it. This goes so sharply against everything I believe that I don't even know wtf more to say about it. I find it abhorrent and sick.

However, there is a good side to this: it shows even shrill leftists who work so hard and so diligently to screw their eyes shut and deny basic human nature are realizing that if we're going to raise a bunch of people with the idea that they're not responsible for their own destiny but rather that it's their neighbor's burden instead, it at least needs to be privatized. Basically, she's pushing for a very conservative, meek version of Bush's excellent plan to privatize Social Security by putting the money into stocks and bonds, giving it a good chance of being not just sustainable but actually successful, rather than dooming it to certain bankruptcy by the time anyone here retires. Right now I'm pissing money into the bottomless hole that is Social Security. I will never get to use any of it. Ever. That money I've earned has been taken from me, never to be seen by me. At least Hillary's finally realizing that something private has to be done, even if her proposal itself is offensive, unfair, and ultimately ineffective.

The talk of "they should've invested better" is really crass and doesn't solve the social ill that exists: helping to provide for people's retirement does.

The bolded part is the accurate part. The idea that your neighbors are responsible to provide for your own retirement is a distinct social sickness.

After all, for the most part these are decent people who have paid their dues all their life. Why shouldn't we use our taxes to show our gratitude

This kind of thinking is just so foreign to me that I don't even really know how to respond properly. I don't even know where to begin. There's just such a root difference in world view that I don't know where the common ground at the base of this diseased logic tree even begins. I'm flabbergasted.

[StruckingFuggle]

Fuggle, of course the taxes aren't literally killing me. Haha

and

I get that. What I had meant is that while I'm against taxing people "to (metaphoric) death", I'm not at all against all taxes.

Anyway, what taxes would I cut? Hmm...all of them.

All of them totally, or how much from here and how much from there? That's only a little bit more to go on than "I oppose the extent to which we're taxed". You could, plus, make it technically true by giving most cuts a fractional percentage of a reduction.

How to account for less money in government coffers? Well, government should not be in the school business, so money won't be needed for government schools. Of course, if I cut K-12 government schools, colleges would also stop getting public funds. Government should not be helping me retire, so there goes Social Security. The government certainly shouldn't be handling my health care, since it's having a hard enough time managing retirement, so Medicare is out. That saves a whole lot of money. Farm and alternative energy subsidies are not a proper function of government, so those are stopped. I could go on, but I think you get my point. Obviously, I'm doomed to perpetual disappointment in politics.

I understand what you're saying, and both disagree and agree, but I do not know if this is the right place to carry on this discussion?

It's disappointing, then, that Democrats will likely have the majority in both houses. This is why Clinton scares me.

It's not enough that they be Democrats, though; they also need to be Clintonian Democrats and then to hold on to their seats in a shifted tide, since I do believe the current majority came about to oppose the Bush Administration more than to advance a Democratic Agenda - which means even if there are Clintonian Democrats who'll support Hildawg, they may not be around for long.


On the subject of farm subsidies, I thought part of it was The Government pays farmers a lot of money to raise extra food for the government to buy and then give away, thus making us one of the largest food-exporting nations in the world; which, if true, is something I'd have to support (to an extent).


And it's definitely another thread, so I won't get into it here beyond mentioning it since it came up, but I'm not convinced (on way or the other) that campaign finance and free speech are all that related... Though it seems to me that (ironically), unlimited and unhindered private campaign financing may serve to choke out voices far more than the reverse (though at the same time, some studies show that at the moment, political spending is not as strongly correlated to victory as the Conventional Wisdom generally states; but I can't support that until I can dig up my copy of Freakonomics).

but hey at least she's not Rudy.

Dude, I would take Giuliani over Clinton any day.

I'd rather have a likely-moderately-unsucessful socialist than a likely-moderately-successful quasi-fascist ... Who's only claim to presidential hopefulness is that he happened to be the 'right man' at the right political place - mayor of NYC on 9/11. Seriously - if that had never happened, would the mayor of any city, even NYC, really be a frontrunner in making the jump to the Presidency?

[Deacon]

Did you just call Giuliani a quasi-fascist?

[collegestudent22]

He also referred to Hillary as Hildawg.....? WTF did that come from....?

[Bigity]

When there's drought conditions in non-critical regions of the country (just as they are now in the Southeast and West), the farm bill allows for the government to buy crops at rates that are higher than the grain bins would normally offer.

Why is the government buying crops at higher rates than the market?

They have Crop Reduction Programs that allow farmers to let certain fields lay fallow and they would get a set rate based off of how much they would had in yield if they took planted crops in that fallow field.

You're confirming that the government pays farmers not to grow food. Thank you.

For instance, there are federal subsidies that Frito-Lay take every year so that the price for that bag of chips and other junk food are lower than the price for veggies and other healthy foods.

And federal subsidies to battle obesity. Damn, I can’t wait for the next government program!

Are you trying to convince me that the farm subsidies should stick around? I suspect not. haha

And while American farmers or the elderly wouldn't riot, they have a lot more control than people think they do. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a stinking primary in Iowa every election so early on.

As I said, it’s vote buying. I don't have any illusions this stuff will actually go away, but I hope.

You seem to know very little about the realities of farming. These programs are in place to keep farmers farming, so that we CAN feed ourselves. Alot of farmers would go out of business without them, leading to a national inability to feed the country without importing food. No doubt the programs need some slimming and trimming, but elimination of the programs would be a mistake bordering on the national crisis magnitude.