• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Citizenship

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,678
3,232
126
...
Why would these people contribute more, so the Gov can just spend that much more? Why doesn't the Gov first spend within its means (and I'll pick 2 Trillion Dollars ((an almost unreal amount)) as the meaning of 'means'), then, when they've proved they can actually do that, then back to all of us on a progressive tax system and plead case for a raise in their income (with our money).

Who here is insane enough to give a crack addict (Gov with $16T+ deficit) who is already known to go steal crack from others (deficit spending) more crack (our money) in the hopes they'll quit and reform themselves (actually run a surplus budget so as to begin paying down the national debt)? <looks around...all eyes are downwards...no one raises hands> No one? Stunner.
...
That's an incredible view I had not considered before. That we should hold out until they prove they can reasonably spend / manage that money without just throwing more of it away on deficits.

Here's the problem, they 'need' that money to close the deficit. How can they be responsible without it? :whiste:
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,344
271
126
Then tell me, who is at fault for our current situation?
Bush. Two wars, unfunded policies, deregulation of banks (although that did partly come from Clinton), etc

Thank god he didn't get this. Anyone anyone?



Democrats blame bankers, not homebuyers for the market crash.
As much as many home buyers should probably not have been in the market, it was the extreme leveraged trading that made it happen.

Democrats blame corporations, not consumers for moving jobs overseas.
(kidding) I solely blame Romney and Bain. (/kidding)

You speak of corporations as if they are one distinct entity. Not one consumer has moved a job overseas.

I don't think it's direct blame, it's more a realization that our current environment puts forth a unsustainable reality that we have to produce things at home to maintain our economy. Democrats want to promote investment in US business with incentive.

Democrats blame the wealthy, not the middle class for not paying enough taxes to support the many government programs that everyone wants.
You can have tax cuts when the budget allows. Good job bushie.

Please educate yourself on the what our budget is (Defense, Medicare, Social Security) discretionary spending, a minor blip.

From everything I read here it sounds to me like Democrats do in fact like to blame particular groups for everything.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,210
126
JFK answered you, and every American, nearly 50 years ago. He said you were asking the right question, but with the wrong damn attitude.

It's not, "Wahhhhh, what more do they want?"

It's, "What more can I do?"






Obama is asking that those making over $250,000 a year to contribute marginally more, yet far less than they did during the glory days of American economic prosperity, under Democrats and Republicans alike.

But if by "these people" you mean the middle and working class, then Obama is not looking to increase their financial burden. In fact, he'd like to give the 99% more of a break.

Warren Buffet is ultra smart and ultra successful. He's more than willing to give back to his country.





The Republicans, otoh, have blocked any bill that wouldn't preserve those Bush era tax cuts for the rich.
In all this what are the parties willing to give up to be good citizens? Are they going to give up their exclusive lock on power? To stop the effective prohibition on the marketplace of ideas? What is their sacrifice? What will Obama surrender that is of value to him? Congress? Anyone?

"Ask not what your country can do for you, let us tell you what you will do for us" is more like it.

The powerful have a very useful ability. They can hold others to a standard of sacrifice while not making a proportional one.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Yes, I thought that was an especially important point. It directly and rather pointedly rebuked the RNC mantra that life is all about greed and self interest. That's one of the changes in today's RNC I find most repugnant and most damaging to America. Republicans once recognized the importance of supporting one's community and building success while being a good citizen. Now they're all about enriching oneself today with no regard to how it affects others, no concern about ethics or morality.
If you believe this, you are seriously damaged.

When exactly did greed switch from wanting others' wealth to wanting to keep what one earns anyway?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Bush. Two wars, unfunded policies, deregulation of banks (although that did partly come from Clinton), etc
So everything that is happening now is the fault of one man, and not the aggregate affect of decades and decades of bad policy by both parties? You are blaming one person.

As much as many home buyers should probably not have been in the market, it was the extreme leveraged trading that made it happen.
Nobody forced buyers to sign on the line. When prices were spiraling up up up buyers got greedy and jumped to cash in like everybody else. Greed was everywhere, but you're blaming only one of the greedy parties.

(kidding) I solely blame Romney and Bain. (/kidding)

You speak of corporations as if they are one distinct entity. Not one consumer has moved a job overseas.

I don't think it's direct blame, it's more a realization that our current environment puts forth a unsustainable reality that we have to produce things at home to maintain our economy. Democrats want to promote investment in US business with incentive.
Corporations do what they must to compete and to maximize profit. The American consumer rewarded those corporations who kept product prices down by shipping production overseas rather than purchasing more expensive American made goods. But you'll find few Democrats who blame the consumer. The consumer votes Democrat. It's easier to point the finger at greedy CEOs and greedy corporations and greed greed greed. Nevermind the greedy consumer who cares about buying more foreign made goods rather than fewer domestic goods. It's all about quantity to the greedy consumer. But they're not at fault...
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,344
271
126
So everything that is happening now is the fault of one man, and not the aggregate affect of decades and decades of bad policy by both parties? You are blaming one person.
I put a Clinton in there dude. I'll go back to Nixion if you want and PS Regan started it.

Nobody forced buyers to sign on the line. When prices were spiraling up up up buyers got greedy and jumped to cash in like everybody else. Greed was everywhere, but you're blaming only one of the greedy parties.
DUDE!!! I said

As much as many home buyers should probably not have been in the market
But they did write up contracts, especially to minorities, that were unfair and predatory. If you think the bankers have no blame. WTF.

Corporations do what they must to compete and to maximize profit. The American consumer rewarded those corporations who kept product prices down by shipping production overseas rather than purchasing more expensive American made goods. But you'll find few Democrats who blame the consumer. The consumer votes Democrat. It's easier to point the finger at greedy CEOs and greedy corporations and greed greed greed. Nevermind the greedy consumer who cares about buying more foreign made goods rather than fewer domestic goods. It's all about quantity to the greedy consumer. But they're not at fault...
There were a lot of things in the 90s that contributed to moving things overseas. One major one that I'll put over the consumer was energy market manipulation. (Enron?) How much companies pay for energy has a lot to do with where they produce their products. Thankfully, this trend is reversing itself and there may be some incentive to return to the states.

I'm just wondering. Who is blaming the consumer other than yourself?
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,210
126
"Today I stand before you seeking a second term in office, in front of the Democratic Party and their representatives. You at home may be a member of our party. Perhaps you are a Republican or Independent, but nevertheless I have the same thing to say to you all. I do not want Democrats, Independents or Republicans to consider me for office. I do not want your vote. Instead I want Americans to come forward and choose as citizens, members of our society, and I want your vote, your approval. For too long the gulf between ideologies has widened to the point where we can no longer effectively function as a nation. I confess that I have been a part of that, however the situation is such that the needs of the citizen must come before any consideration as it should always have been. I encourage you to act as responsible citizens and hold us to a high standard. Tell us how you think and feel. Educate yourselves as to the possibilities outside that which has been presented to you. Encourage and chide us as is fitting. This is the duty of a citizen. Our duty to you is to set aside our distain for our opposition, to reign in our hubris, because we too are citizens, although we serve in government. Service. To lead is to follow. To bring forth opportunities and ideas not of our own making for our own glory or advantage. If we are to be good citizens we must fulfill that role, to be a means of opportunity and prosperity for all people regardless of their social status. We exist to serve, not one group or interest, but to facilitate the positive qualities that are inherently American.

To be good citizens means we put forward the interests of not just ourselves. Not to insist that our way is righteous because we say it is, but seek knowledge and wisdom in an effort to better ourselves to benefit all. We are Americans and while we may err, we can and must come back to our roots planted in freedom and opportunity.

"Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what can we do for us all."

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
If you believe this, you are seriously damaged.

When exactly did greed switch from wanting others' wealth to wanting to keep what one earns anyway?
Probably the same time it became moral to have 3 children with 3 different fathers (2 of which are incarcerated felons).
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
/this

give me facts and figures..and stick to them.

Commitment? from what i can see i have more then a large portion of the US. i pay taxes, raise my kids, I make sure they are safe and have a stable home with food, electricity and meet the needs they have. We volunteer with the Girl scouts, we give to very few charities we agree with and help those in the area who need it.

I am not on section 8, food stamps, wic, or any other government handout.

When the rest of the US is even with that he can bitch i'm not doing more.
Very well said. Whether one votes Democrat or Republican or Lbertarian, THIS is 90% of what you can do for your country; this IS America. If everyone who is able would do as much, even the politicians wouldn't be able to screw up the country that badly.

Right, because your average Republican doesn't volunteer locally. Doesn't donate to food shelves. Doesn't drop money in the Salvation Army bucket. They all cackle like and swim in vats of money like Scrooge McDuck. :rolleyes;

Democrats damage their own message by attempting to paint ridiculous caricatures of their "enemy".
:D You forget that for Democrats, responsibility is demanding that others pay more.

Did JFKs speech have a footnote saying that it only applied to the 1%?

What are the 99% doing for the country? Sounds like right now the 99% is doing a whole lot of asking for things from their country, and not quite as much doing for the country.

Shouldn't the 99% pay more taxes as well? Why aren't you asking what you can do? Your whole post talks about people other than you doing things. Very disingenuous.
Well said.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
That's an incredible view I had not considered before. That we should hold out until they prove they can reasonably spend / manage that money without just throwing more of it away on deficits.

Here's the problem, they 'need' that money to close the deficit. How can they be responsible without it? :whiste:
Yeah, that's the problem: They need more money to go from the $2T+ last actual budget, which they've run $1T+ over year by year, so they can get to a $3T+ income level (meaning: "We" ((the ones that actually pay a positive amount to the Gov after tax season is over)) "give" them another $1T of our money), so they can then crow, 'Look, we have a balanced budget, we balanced the budget, We're awesome!'.

F that.

Let them live within - and not over - a stratospheric $2T income for a year or two, then we can talk about them getting more funding.

Chuck
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
If you believe this, you are seriously damaged.

When exactly did greed switch from wanting others' wealth to wanting to keep what one earns anyway?
Advocating that people with money to burn should "keep what they earn" while others starve or go without healthcare could be characterized as "greed." Opposing modest tax increases for the wealthy when the existing tax rates are at their lowest level in several generations could be characterized as "greed." Depends on one's perspective.

The trouble I have with the idea that we "keep what we earn" is that it confuses free market mechanics with morality. It assumes that we "earn" - in the moral sense of the word - whatever the market gives us. So the CEO who makes 1000x the salary of the man on the factory floor really worked 1000x as hard? No, but the market may fix his "value" in monetary units at 1000x that of the factory worker because these are the vagaries of free market mechanics. The distinction is pretty clear, but seems to be lost on conservatives.

I'm not talking about disregarding the market here. What I'm saying is that the free market is not a system of morality but rather a system of resource distribution. It is purely instrumental. It feels like conservatives are conflating free market mechanics with morality when they rail on about "keeping what we earn." They are taking the basic desire for more and turning it into a self-righteous moral proposition, with the Free Market as the new Gospel.

I personally think the morality of it is a lot more complicated than "whatever the market will bear." In a civilized society, there must be other considerations. This is the key to the ideological divide right now. It's a national conversation that we are having and I suspect it will largely be resolved some time in the first half of this century. We're going to eventually figure out what kind of country we want to live in.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Advocating that people with money to burn should "keep what they earn" while others starve or go without healthcare could be characterized as "greed." Opposing modest tax increases for the wealthy when the existing tax rates are at their lowest level in several generations could be characterized as "greed." Depends on one's perspective.

The trouble I have with the idea that we "keep what we earn" is that it confuses free market mechanics with morality. It assumes that we "earn" - in the moral sense of the word - whatever the market gives us. So the CEO who makes 1000x the salary of the man on the factory floor really worked 1000x as hard? No, but the market may fix his "value" in monetary units at 1000x that of the factory worker because these are the vagaries of free market mechanics. The distinction is pretty clear, but seems to be lost on conservatives.

I'm not talking about disregarding the market here. What I'm saying is that the free market is not a system of morality but rather a system of resource distribution. It is purely instrumental. It feels like conservatives are conflating free market mechanics with morality when they rail on about "keeping what we earn." They are taking the basic desire for more and turning it into a self-righteous moral proposition.

I personally think the morality of it is a lot more complicated than "whatever the market will bear." In a civilized society, there must be other considerations. This is the key to the ideological divide right now. It's a national conversation that we are having and I suspect it will largely be resolved some time in the first half of this century. We're going to eventually figure out what kind of country we want to live in.

- wolf
So could screwing whoever you want, smoking dope, and popping out multiple kids you cannot and have no interest is raising, and demanding that other provide you with food and healthcare.

And I am not sure what civilized society would allow people to act like those described above.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
Advocating that people with money to burn should "keep what they earn" while others starve or go without healthcare could be characterized as "greed." O
- wolf
yes they should keep what they earn.

I am all for closeing loopholes in the tax code. for taxing people higher with offshore accounts, business's that outsource everything.

but people that make that money? that is there's. i don't want it. would i love to be as rich as Bill Gates? hell yeah. do i wan't to force him to spread that money around? no.

I want to earn it not be given to me.

I dispise those sitting on welfare doing nothing. I dispise those that can be working and decide they would rather get hand outs.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
So could screwing whoever you want, smoking dope, and popping out multiple kids you cannot and have no interest is raising, and demanding that other provide you with food and healthcare.

And I am not sure what civilized society would allow people to act like those described above.
You're trying to be glib here rather than responding to the meat of my post: free market mechanics /= morality. What that does or does not mean for a given welfare program, tax policy, or anything else, is an open question. I'm simply addressing the conservative fallacy of conflating morality with free market mechanics, the idea that we "earn" - in the moral sense - whatever the Free Market doles out. It's an implicit, threshold assumption which undergirds conservative thought.

If you want to rail on about all the categories of people you dislike, argue about it with someone else. Your personal distastes are of little interest to me.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
yes they should keep what they earn.

I am all for closeing loopholes in the tax code. for taxing people higher with offshore accounts, business's that outsource everything.

but people that make that money? that is there's. i don't want it. would i love to be as rich as Bill Gates? hell yeah. do i wan't to force him to spread that money around? no.

I want to earn it not be given to me.

I dispise those sitting on welfare doing nothing. I dispise those that can be working and decide they would rather get hand outs.
Nevermind the misspelling. Along with Nehalem, you've perfectly capsulized conservative thinking, and again are ignoring the fallacy that one "earns" whatever the market gives them.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Nevermind the misspelling. Along with Nehalem, you've perfectly capsulized conservative thinking, and again are ignoring the fallacy that one "earns" whatever the market gives them.
Outside of government intervention in the market or outright theft or deception, how does one obtain money that one did not earn?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Advocating that people with money to burn should "keep what they earn" while others starve or go without healthcare could be characterized as "greed." Opposing modest tax increases for the wealthy when the existing tax rates are at their lowest level in several generations could be characterized as "greed." Depends on one's perspective.

The trouble I have with the idea that we "keep what we earn" is that it confuses free market mechanics with morality. It assumes that we "earn" - in the moral sense of the word - whatever the market gives us. So the CEO who makes 1000x the salary of the man on the factory floor really worked 1000x as hard? No, but the market may fix his "value" in monetary units at 1000x that of the factory worker because these are the vagaries of free market mechanics. The distinction is pretty clear, but seems to be lost on conservatives.

I'm not talking about disregarding the market here. What I'm saying is that the free market is not a system of morality but rather a system of resource distribution. It is purely instrumental. It feels like conservatives are conflating free market mechanics with morality when they rail on about "keeping what we earn." They are taking the basic desire for more and turning it into a self-righteous moral proposition, with the Free Market as the new Gospel.

I personally think the morality of it is a lot more complicated than "whatever the market will bear." In a civilized society, there must be other considerations. This is the key to the ideological divide right now. It's a national conversation that we are having and I suspect it will largely be resolved some time in the first half of this century. We're going to eventually figure out what kind of country we want to live in.

- wolf
Classifying some people as having "money to burn" has to empower government to decide how much money one is entitled to have and to seize the remainder, and to decide what one needs and take as much from others as is necessary to meet that need. Personally I'm not comfortable with a government who decides that. I think morally everyone should pay the same rate for that income of any source above the poverty level, or perhaps above the poverty level plus some basic deductions. Otherwise we are inevitably at "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Feel free to make the distinction between Marxists and those who merely embrace Marxist economic philosophy though.

As far as deriding CEOs for not earning what they are paid, isn't that a bit hypocritical if one is advocating giving their pay to those who often don't work at all? However hard a CEO works for his paycheck, by definition it's harder than someone who did nothing at all for his "fair share" of that paycheck.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
Nevermind the misspelling. Along with Nehalem, you've perfectly capsulized conservative thinking, and again are ignoring the fallacy that one "earns" whatever the market gives them.
and how else is one supposed to "earn" anything?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Nevermind the misspelling. Along with Nehalem, you've perfectly capsulized conservative thinking, and again are ignoring the fallacy that one "earns" whatever the market gives them.
This does perfectly encapsulate both views.

Conservatives believe one earns one's salary, and therefore there should be a pretty pressing reason for government to take it away.

Liberals believe one is given one's salary, and therefore there should be a pretty pressing reason for government to not take it away.

Works for other variations as well, as long as we're painting with very broad strokes.

Libertarians believe one earns one's salary, and therefore government should shrivel up and die except for powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Progressives believe one steals one's salary, and therefore government should confiscate and imprison anyone making above the "correct" amount (that being anything greater than the individual proggie) unless those individuals are actively engaged in helping the proggie take money from someone else.

Works for religion too.
Baptists believe that one earns one's salary and one should be able to keep it as long as it isn't spent for gay porn, alcohol and dancing. Except for a tithe, of course.

Scientologists believe that all salaries were brought here long ago and dumped into a volcano, and now they seep out with the biggest, strongest salaries attracted to the most enlightened individuals (i.e. those individuals who have invested the most in our reasonably priced enlightenment programs.)

This is kind of like that "two cows" thing. Let's all play! :D
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,775
376
136
Corporations do what they must to compete and to maximize profit. The American consumer rewarded those corporations who kept product prices down by shipping production overseas rather than purchasing more expensive American made goods. But you'll find few Democrats who blame the consumer. The consumer votes Democrat. It's easier to point the finger at greedy CEOs and greedy corporations and greed greed greed. Nevermind the greedy consumer who cares about buying more foreign made goods rather than fewer domestic goods. It's all about quantity to the greedy consumer. But they're not at fault...
I said this in another thread, but this is my opinion on the shipping jobs overseas..

The consumer doesn't care what's best for America. A company typically doesn't care what's best for America. It's the government's job to do what's best for America. If that is by force through regulations/taxes/tarrifs or creating incentives so be it. But a corporation or consumer will always do what is best for themselves only. You can not expect anymore or any less.

You can not really "blame" a consumer for paying the lower price in order to afford their bills, food, etc... (or in some cases, drugs or other wasteful things). Just as I can't "blame" a corporation for being forced to try to be competitive. The whole issue is 100% the fault of politicians and poor planning of our government.

What we should expect is for the government to be looking out for the countries best interest in this manner. However, unfortunately, both parties fail us with this issue. The corporations and consumers I do blame, are those who are OK with it or those who lobby against things that could help reverse the issue.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I said this in another thread, but this is my opinion on the shipping jobs overseas..

The consumer doesn't care what's best for America. A company typically doesn't care what's best for America. It's the government's job to do what's best for America. If that is by force through regulations/taxes/tarrifs or creating incentives so be it. But a corporation or consumer will always do what is best for themselves only. You can not expect anymore or any less.

You can not really "blame" a consumer for paying the lower price in order to afford their bills, food, etc... (or in some cases, drugs or other wasteful things). Just as I can't "blame" a corporation for being forced to try to be competitive. The whole issue is 100% the fault of politicians and poor planning of our government.

What we should expect is for the government to be looking out for the countries best interest in this manner. However, unfortunately, both parties fail us with this issue. The corporations and consumers I do blame, are those who are OK with it or those who lobby against things that could help reverse the issue.
It's hard to be patriotic. If one corporation keeps manufacturing jobs in America and others don't, it will probably be driven out of business by cheaper competitors. If one consumer wants to buy American and most others don't, he won't be able to find American-made products.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,515
13,519
136
What a stunning display of right wing "values", such as they are, along with the usual false attributions & equivalencies.

Righties always act as if inheritance, luck, connections & market position have nothing to do with "success"- that it's all about "hard work", which is pure bullshit.

Mitt makes ~$24M/yr, and he's "retired". Does that mean he ever worked 1000X as hard as a person making ~$24K/yr?

If you think he did, you're delusional.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
What a stunning display of right wing "values", such as they are, along with the usual false attributions & equivalencies.

Righties always act as if inheritance, luck, connections & market position have nothing to do with "success"- that it's all about "hard work", which is pure bullshit.

Mitt makes ~$24M/yr, and he's "retired". Does that mean he ever worked 1000X as hard as a person making ~$24K/yr?

If you think he did, you're delusional.
stunning is how big the pot of excuses the left has.

odd's are the guy making jack shit, fucked up their life.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,785
1,091
126
I grew up in a time and place where everyone I knew was quietly but not angrily patriotic, where your neighbor's patriotism was not questioned but assumed, and where Democrats and Republicans regularly managed to work together to go to the moon, to pass the Civil Rights acts, to fund the interstate highway system, and to keep our military strong enough to face down the Russians.

In grade school we read Edward Everett Hale's "The Man Without a Country" and I thought this was the saddest man I'd ever come across, to have lost his citizenship, to never again see or hear from or belong to America!

I grew up with JFK challenging all of us to "Ask not what your country can do for you; Ask what you can do for your country" absolutely NOT meaning that you should then use this mantra to demonize the poorer and less advantaged as having not done enough, and that THIS would then be YOU doing what you can for America.
What you said was so damned good I felt compelled to repeat it. And for those narrow minded whiners that jumped in later bitching that you pay soooo much taxes (in a country where the maximum marginal tax rate is less than half it was when I grew up), you frankly sicken me. Service can and does involve more than tax payments-how about the army grunts, the Peace Corp, Vista, etc. volunteers, etc. Service is service and we ALL owe it to do our best to help improve society.

When I was a kid, the leader of our Scouts troop for years was a neighbor down the street, a heart surgeon and the head of surgery at the local hospital. It's those sort of people I respect and honor, irrespective of what their political philisophy is. And I've met and known plenty like him on both sides of the isle.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY