1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The 'Trickle-Down' Lie

Joe165 Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 1:07 PM
One other common argument used by liberals to justify redistribution is that wealthier people own more because they have benefited from the infrastructure (such as roads) to create their wealth, so they should pay more. One answer to that is that they certainly are paying more. Even people advocating a "flat tax" generally mean some kind proportional tax. A true "flat tax" would mean for example that everyone pays $100, and that's it. No serious politician of either party is suggesting that. But lets consider the road example, and restrict it to roads to simplify the logical argument. Say there are 2 people, Joe and Bill G. Say that Joe uses the roads just to drive to work to earn an average salary, and Bill G. uses them by hiring trucks to drive around and deliver his computers to stores, thus making billions. :-) So how much more does Bill G. owe for this? In one sense nothing, because there is nothing preventing Joe from starting his own business and using the roads to deliver his products. But say that you want to count the fact that Bill G.'s trucks are wearing down the roads faster than Joe's once-per-day commute. In that case, the fair thing is to charge a usage tax for the road, and charge Bill G. for exactly what he is getting. The problem is that Democrats kind of use it as an infinite tab that we can charge to business owners, regardless of their actual usage of the infrastructure. That is not fair. Another kind of argument might be that there are intangibles such as military protection for life and property against foreign invasion, or the fact of having the rule of law itself. But you can't charge one person more for those things than the other. Both Joe and Bill W. value their life and the general peace the same amount - just about infinite. Those are the natural rights granted to man by his Creator, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
In response to:

The 'Trickle-Down' Lie

Joe165 Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 10:49 AM
It would probably seem less offensive if we used the term "flow-down". Trickle implies a meager and paltry amount flowing down. One way to look at it is that all blessings (including material resources) flow down from God, mostly through other people.
In response to:

The 'Trickle-Down' Lie

Joe165 Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 10:46 AM
Sounds like lbrown is saying that David Stockman, former Reagan administration budget director, used the term "trickle-down". I guess that would answer Sowell's question about who has actually advocated the trickle-down theory. So maybe the theory is that if tax cuts are given to wealthier people and corporations, then they will do better and invest in other business ventures that hire more people. Maybe the difficult and hard-to-swallow fact here is that all economics is "trickle-down" to some extent. The fact is that only a small percentage of people have the luck, talent, and resources to start business or government ventures that allow others to make a living. So in a sense, its all "trickling down" from those people. Of course they are obligated to pay their employees a fair wage, and if they don't, it's wrong. But its also wrong to force them to give a separate chunk of money to others, just because they have been successful. I suppose the early American pioneers who staked out some land and farmed it with their own hands are the closest thing to "non-trickle-down" economics that we've had. But even they had to buy some tools from eastern manufacturers. Plus, realistically they worked harder than most of us today can imagine, so do we really want to go back to that model?
In response to:

Weaker by the Week

Joe165 Wrote: Oct 17, 2013 4:27 PM
So what is the core problem behind the lack of leaders like Reagan and inspired behind-the-scenes helpers like Deaver? Is it just the luck of the draw? No, I think it is that the core conservative principles have been twisted just a bit, so that they have become a little bit like the caricature that the left has made of them. Conservatives need to ask themselves honestly - are we the party of allowing talented and lucky people to get really rich, and to hell with the rest of them? That is not true conservatism, in my opinion. We have to look at our heart, and determine that we believe that conservatism truly is better for everyone, rich and poor alike, and sell that message. We need to remember that the greatest founding principles for conservatism came from the bible, via the founding fathers. Man is basically sinful, and government must help him to find his better nature by providing the correct incentives for hard work and family values. We must not allow tyrants to arise, and thus careful preserve the checks and balances in government. This is for the good of all, not just the entrepreneurs. The truth is, only 1% of people will ever be capable of being a true entrepreneur, so we shouldn't idolize that or make it into something that everyone is expected to do. But the system should serve everyone by being design to correctly reflect the truth about human nature.
In response to:

What I Saw in Israel

Joe165 Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 11:32 AM
I think the problem is that how we view the Jews is determined by how we view God. I think the Jews themselves would rather this was not so, maybe they would like to be viewed as "just people". But in fact they are God's chosen, and God has not changed on this. I remember before I accepted Christ I thought the Jews were interesting, but kind of odd. I didn't hate them, but I wanted to keep them at arm's length. Now since having accepted Christ, I have a special love for them in my heart. I'm not sure they want either the distancing or the special love, but there it is.
In response to:

Intellectuals and Race: Part II

Joe165 Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 1:52 PM
OK, fine, so Sowell may be too old to make a presidential bid. Or maybe since he is an intellectual and a writer, he is not so great at public speaking. But what if we had another candidate, and Sowell acted as his advisor and speech writer? I'm thinking about either Bobby Jindal or Condoleezza Rice?
The deeper question is this: Is science the servant of man, who is made in God's image? Or is man the servant or even slave of science, and the results of the latest "scientific" study is allowed to crush our families, or beliefs, our love of God and neighbor, and our principles?
My question is this: was this problem really caused by liberal government welfare programs foisted on people by a few officials? Or was there already an underlying spiritual cause, that had changed the hearts of many people so they were ready for this kind of solution? It seems that 1940 or the WWII era is often sited as a watershed date of change. I believe that this is when the universal church suffered a great blow because it had mixed an evolutionary world view with true Christian doctrine of creation, and finally the results of that mix became horribly clear when the truth about Hitler's racial purification program were made known. Hitler's ideas came straight from evolution, and the idea that people are merely advanced animals.
In response to:

Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your "Fair Share"

Joe165 Wrote: Dec 07, 2012 10:51 AM
I think that rich people that preach about how the rich need to pay more taxes ought to be pressured to release their own tax returns, like candidates are. Does Asner have any of his own money in tax shelters? It would be interesting to find out.
In response to:

An Overdue Book

Joe165 Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 11:33 AM
I think the problem is that the tax issue is just the surface of the problem. The deeper problem is that people voted for a government that will take care of them in most major respects (health, education, etc.) and implicitly agreed that they are willing to give up their liberty and property rights in exchange for that. Of course it would be one thing if such a bargain actually worked, but it seems that history shows that it doesn't work, and the poor suffer most of all under such a "bargain".
1 - 10 Next