Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As Lincoln said, "You cannot make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak and you cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor." I thought
this piece might be enlightening for a lot of people here.
Not really. Once again, he claims that without a low income tax that the incentive to generate wealth will be destroyed. He apparently neglects to tell people that the rich in the US
paid a much higher marginal rate in the past than they do now. And guess what, people still created businesses and jobs. The government is not taking all of your money, if you earn a million next year, for every dollar beyond that you earn, you still get to keep most of it. There is still an incentive for you to earn more.
The author clearly indicates that he has no idea what Marxism really is. In that way, he is no different from many people on this board that keep throwing around the term "Socialism" but always back down and ignore my request to 1) describe it and 2) detail how the United States is transforming into a Socialist nation by increasing progressive tax rates (a concept embraced by even Adam Smith). And if the author wants to maintain a veil of impartiality, he probably shouldn't write articles like
this.
The America of now is one where Orwellian logic rules. Forced redistribution of wealth is fairness. Taxes are patriotic. The free market should be a regulated market. Big government is good for you. Politicians know what kind of healthcare is best for you. Choice should be limited, except when it comes to abortion. Power comes from being powerless. Progressive education is designed to promote progress toward socialism. Race doesn?t count unless a person of color tells you it counts. Higher education gets lower each year. Those who create our problems should be asked to solve them. Religion should be a private matter that does not inform public morality. Liberal is radical. Free speech is selective speech. Courage is impetuousness.
Yeah, sounds like a reasonable guy. Let's break it down...
1) Orwellian logic - Yes, surely the Bush administration was model of truth and transparency and never used propaganda and misinformation to further their goals. Every politician and political party does this, but the fact that he says this about an Obama election raises some huge red flags and lets me know of the bat that this guy is a partisan hack, nothing more.
2) Forced redistribution of wealth is fairness.... Even Adam Smith said this was fair.
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
The US has used progressive taxation in the past and in a much more punishing and progressive manner. To say that Obama is now the harbinger of redistribution is a lie and ignores the last century of US tax policy.
3) Paying your taxes is patriotic... so he believes the antithesis is true? If I quit paying my taxes would you call me a patriot? There is nothing patriotic or non-patriotic about it, it is fulfilling my civic and lawful duty.
4) The free market should have some regulations in place. You see the CDS catastrophe approaching? CDSs were used because they didn't fall under insurance regulations. You see banks leveraging themselves 40, 50, 60:1? Yep, result of deregulation. Oh yeah, and regulation prevents the formation of cartels and monopolies, which inevitably result in a purely unregulated market. Yes, the government can actually encourage competition.
5) Big government is good for you... in some ways, absolutely. Many people here seem to think that government is the worst evil imaginable. Simply untrue. Bad government is intolerable, this is true, but the idea of government is invaluable. Look at some of the most prosperous nations on the planet (eg. Singapore, Ireland). They often involve active government involvement in things like setting wages in a neo-Corporate environment. In fact, many of these nations destroy the US in terms of per capita GDP (nominal and PPP). Of course, these governments are usually very transparent in their operation and not nearly as corrupt. As I said, government isn't the problem, bad government is.
6) Politicians know what health care is good for you. In one very important way, this is true. They know that having healthcare is better than not having healthcare, which is really superfluous since we
all have emergent healthcare. If we can reduce the amount of GDP spent on healthcare, why not at least try preventative care?
7) What choice is limited? And does he believe the antithesis? Should everyone have free choice in everything (whatever that means) but not abortion?
8) Power comes from being powerless. What does this mean exactly? Are the poor somehow in a position of power over the rich elite that currently pull the strings in Congress?
9) Education to Socialism. Anti-intellectualism is certainly nothing new, but coming from a Prof it's certainly arrogant. Reading some of his articles, I might make the alternate claim that taking his classes leads to Fascism. He's certainly quick to attack the progressive system from which he collects a paycheck. Or perhaps
other professors shouldn't be allowed to express their views.
10) Race doesn't count.... how does this involve the government? If you know someone that is offended by racial slurs, I would recommend you not make one to them. How is this Obama's problem?
11) Higher education gets lower each year... I have no idea what this means. Lower what? Elevation, frequency, cost, height? Doesn't make any sense.
12) I certainly don't agree with helping bankers and then relying on them to fix a problem they created. But this is a result of politicians of both administrations. And why do we think that an unregulated market that went out of control with greed (and those CEOs that will inevitably just be hired by boards whom are populated by their friends) will solve this problem in the future.
13) Religion should be private. What's the issue here? Is he suggesting that we let religion govern public discourse and resolution? If so, which one?
14) How is liberal radical? Someone from that side of the aisle just got elected.
15) Free speech is selective speech. How so? I haven't noticed anyone telling me I can no longer say something that I could say before Obama got elected.
16) What courage is he referring to?
Face it, the guy that wrote the article you posted is nothing original. He's simply another partisan hack, and we have plenty of those to go around. He parrots others, but for being a professor, I'm disheartened by his inability to do any sort of quantitative examination of the problem (for instance, ignores 100 years of progressive and often repressive tax rates). But I suppose hiding your worn ideology in verbose articles is standard fare these days for people too busy to question their own ideas and the world around them. He certainly spent more time writing that article than actually determining if our country is on a path to "Marxist utopia."
Facebook
Twitter