OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[pk500]

Why should a guy who went to med school for seven years, slaved ridiculous hours as an intern before becoming a successful doctor and has the vital job of saving human lives be forced to fork over some of his money to some guy who works at the local video store for 40 hours a week after dropping out of high school and smokes dope and plays World of Warcraft all night?

That's f*cking insane!

That sounds like the typical anecdote told by Republican politicians to rail against social programs.

You know, outright made up or exaggerated.

But what, only successful people have "slaved ridiculous hours?"

And everyone making a lousy income is working some cush job waiting for a handout to finance a lazy lifestyle?

Not at all. But people make choices in their lives.

I started my career in journalism. I KNEW there wouldn't be any money in it; that was no mystery to me. The lack of dough and horrible hours forced me into PR, which gets few rich but still has more money than journalism.

But there's a simple fact that the socialist wing of the Democratic Party doesn't get: Life is a hell of a lot more of a meritocracy than a democracy.

No healthy person in America is predestined to any career. You make choices. If you decide to go to med school, chances are you're going to make more dough than a guy who paints stripes in parking lots. If you decide to work hard at Wal-Mart, you're simply not going to make as much as someone who works hard designing computer software, which is a more lucrative field.

Chances are, the person working at Wal-Mart does not have the same level of education as someone designing computer software. The person working at Wal-Mart probably doesn't work the obscene amount of hours and under the deadline pressures of someone designing software.

That's the way it is: Life is a meritocracy.

Everyone in America has the chance at higher education, especially the poor. There are countless grants and scholarships for the poor, especially poor minorities. But what percentage of the poor pursue those goals?

Again, another family example. My wife is the only member of her family to graduate from a four-year college. Her father was a small dairy farmer, and she got through college with a bunch of grants and loans. She worked her ass off and became successful in the mortgage field after college before leaving the workplace to be a full-time mother.

My wife's younger sister got even better grades than my wife in high school. Yet she dropped out of high school ONE SEMESTER short of graduation and has bounced from one low-paying job to another the last 20 years, getting pregnant when she was 19 and 21 and unmarried, etc., etc. Everyone tried to urge her to get her GED and go to community college, which she could have done pretty much for free due to low-income grants, etc.

But she refused. Now she has no money and blames the entire world for her problems, which all were spawned when she decided to quit school at 17.

People make choices. Then they must live with them.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Good post, WCO. Some of the people I've known that have had the "hardest" jobs got paid the least. In one of my "summer" jobs during college, I knew guys who worked 12 hour days in a sweatshop for $3.85 an hour, plus time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40. The difference was, in my case, at the end of the summer I'd go back to school. In their case, they never left. (And most had kids to feed). I for one would like to see them get cut a break.

Did those guys who work in the sweatshop pursue higher education at a younger age? Did they finish high school? Did they at least pursue community college, possibly going to night school while working during the day?

Did those guys in the sweatshop pursue any vocational career training, offered in nearly every community, which would have let them climb higher in the skilled labor pool?

Did those guys in the sweatshop look to any other unskilled labor jobs in their area that might have paid more?

I worked in concrete construction for two summers during college with union and non-union workers. None of them were idiots, but some of them looked at me like I had leprosy because I was "college boy," as if pursuing higher education made me some sort of a weasel. When we had jobs that were out of town, some of these guys went out every night and drank and smoked (cigarettes) away a good chunk of their check EVERY week.

That's the type of mentality that should be "cut a break?"

Take care,
PK

[Naples39]

IMO, it completely misses the point to talk about who works harder. It is impossible to definitively make the case that rich people don't work hard and the government should take away more of their money for that reason. It is equally impossible to make the case that poor people work hard and deserve handouts. (And vice-versa for all other anecdotes)

The question is, in the absence of actual empirical evidence, what policy do we pursue?

The simplest explanation is usually the best one. More often than not, people making large incomes usually do so because of their intelligence, talent, and/or productivity. Other people tend not to get paid precisely because they fail to do so. This is Econ 101 stuff here.

Of course there are exceptions, and obviously some people start in a better place than others. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary of these basic economic principles, it is irresponsible for an organization as powerful as the federal government to arbitrarily decide to take money from one pocket and put it in another.

Or said differently, I guess you could say I don't agree with a blanket statement that those rich 'fu#@ers' should have to pay more and assume that they make extra money out of privilege.

[wco81]

People don't always have the luxury to make choices in their lives.

I remember reading for a time that the percentage of blacks and Hispanics going to college increased for a time in the '70s and early '80s and then the percentage dropped again.

The unemployment rate for black teens is at least 20% and has been for a long time.

Big parts of inner cities have been written off. The middle class know to avoid these areas.

America has more social mobility than other nations but it's not a perfect meritocracy. Look at the old white males in Wall Street who were pulling down 6, 7 or 8-figure compensation and ran their firms into the ground, making reckless bets because doing so helped their compensation (bonuses, stock options). Never mind that they were suppose to have fiduciary duties to take care of the assets of the firm and its shareholders.

In the last year, Visa had the biggest IPO ever. The CEO at the time of the IPO had been put in place a few months before the IPO. IOW, he didn't build the Visa business but was going to walk away with at least ten of millions for a few months of work.

Or what about the CEO of WaMu or Wachovia. Again a short-termer brought in when the bank was on the brink of failure. The bank gets taken over and he walks away with a $20 million golden parachute.

Do the guys who get promotions at the office always turn out to be the best workers? Or sometimes, are we talking about who schmoozes the bosses the best?

EDIT: I'm not BTW arguing that we should expand welfare programs. But the notion that people collecting welfare have it easy is ridiculous. Welfare provides a subsistence living and little else. Hardly something to aspire to.

As far as tax policy, it's unfortunate that it's couched in such narrow terms, as taking away from the more successful and "redistributing" to the less well-off or "cutting them a break."

Every Western country has a progressive tax system, meaning the higher the income, the greater the percentage you pay.

There are countries with flat taxes and these are mostly the former Eastern Bloc nations, including Russia. Western European nations have some advocates for flat taxes, like in the US and the only one close to implementing it is supposedly Greece.

Is it an accident that the most prosperous countries "take more" from the higher income workers?

[GTHobbes]

Good post, WCO. Some of the people I've known that have had the "hardest" jobs got paid the least. In one of my "summer" jobs during college, I knew guys who worked 12 hour days in a sweatshop for $3.85 an hour, plus time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40. The difference was, in my case, at the end of the summer I'd go back to school. In their case, they never left. (And most had kids to feed). I for one would like to see them get cut a break.

Did those guys who work in the sweatshop pursue higher education at a younger age? Did they finish high school? Did they at least pursue community college, possibly going to night school while working during the day?

Did those guys in the sweatshop pursue any vocational career training, offered in nearly every community, which would have let them climb higher in the skilled labor pool?

Did those guys in the sweatshop look to any other unskilled labor jobs in their area that might have paid more?

I worked in concrete construction for two summers during college with union and non-union workers. None of them were idiots, but some of them looked at me like I had leprosy because I was "college boy," as if pursuing higher education made me some sort of a weasel. When we had jobs that were out of town, some of these guys went out every night and drank and smoked (cigarettes) away a good chunk of their check EVERY week.

That's the type of mentality that should be "cut a break?"

Take care,
PK

Again, I can't really argue with ya on this, PK. I'm not saying those people made the best choices in their lives. But neither did I...and for whatever reason, not as many of my bad choices came back to haunt me. I'm just more willing to see them get cut a break...that's all.

[Naples39]

In the last year, Visa had the biggest IPO ever. The CEO at the time of the IPO had been put in place a few months before the IPO. IOW, he didn't build the Visa business but was going to walk away with at least ten of millions for a few months of work.

Or what about the CEO of WaMu or Wachovia. Again a short-termer brought in when the bank was on the brink of failure. The bank gets taken over and he walks away with a $20 million golden parachute.

Do the guys who get promotions at the office always turn out to be the best workers? Or sometimes, are we talking about who schmoozes the bosses the best?

These anecdotes are no more convincing than a story about lifetime criminals who collect welfare and other government handouts as a justification for ending all government spending for the poor. Using anecdotes is appealing but entirely inappropriate for crafting policy.

I also have to say, it is really amazing to me that America has become the worlds most powerful economy when we keep giving high salaries and promotions to destructive ass-kissers and not talented and productive people on the whole.

[XXXIV]

This one time...at band camp...

[pk500]

The unemployment rate for black teens is at least 20% and has been for a long time.

That's a problem. But the culture of the inner-city, in which selling drugs is made to be an attractive option for teens and in which teens who climb out of poverty into the "white working world" are seen as "Uncle Toms," has absolutely nothing to do with that, right?

America has more social mobility than other nations but it's not a perfect meritocracy. Look at the old white males in Wall Street who were pulling down 6, 7 or 8-figure compensation and ran their firms into the ground, making reckless bets because doing so helped their compensation (bonuses, stock options). Never mind that they were suppose to have fiduciary duties to take care of the assets of the firm and its shareholders.

No question. But they are the exceptions to the wealthy, not the rule. For every CEO of Lehman Bros., WaMu, Wachovia or VISA, you can find 100 CEO's who are doing the right thing for their companies. Yes, they are compensated well. But they are the No. 1 guy at their company.

EDIT: I'm not BTW arguing that we should expand welfare programs. But the notion that people collecting welfare have it easy is ridiculous. Welfare provides a subsistence living and little else. Hardly something to aspire to.

And I never inferred that. But there are RAMPANT abuses in the welfare system. I've seen it, both in my former workplace and in my current in-laws. Do you have first-hand experience with the working poor, either through the workplace or your extended family?

There are countries with flat taxes and these are mostly the former Eastern Bloc nations, including Russia. Western European nations have some advocates for flat taxes, like in the US and the only one close to implementing it is supposedly Greece.

Is it an accident that the most prosperous countries "take more" from the higher income workers?

I do not favor the flat tax program. My preference is no income tax.

Of course, I'm waiting for your "that's impossible" follow-up, since your utopian government is one that provides endless social programs to fit everyone's needs.

You believe in maximum government, which requires maximum funding. I believe in minimum government, which requires minimum funding. Fundamental difference there.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Good post, WCO. Some of the people I've known that have had the "hardest" jobs got paid the least. In one of my "summer" jobs during college, I knew guys who worked 12 hour days in a sweatshop for $3.85 an hour, plus time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40. The difference was, in my case, at the end of the summer I'd go back to school. In their case, they never left. (And most had kids to feed). I for one would like to see them get cut a break.

Did those guys who work in the sweatshop pursue higher education at a younger age? Did they finish high school? Did they at least pursue community college, possibly going to night school while working during the day?

Did those guys in the sweatshop pursue any vocational career training, offered in nearly every community, which would have let them climb higher in the skilled labor pool?

Did those guys in the sweatshop look to any other unskilled labor jobs in their area that might have paid more?

I worked in concrete construction for two summers during college with union and non-union workers. None of them were idiots, but some of them looked at me like I had leprosy because I was "college boy," as if pursuing higher education made me some sort of a weasel. When we had jobs that were out of town, some of these guys went out every night and drank and smoked (cigarettes) away a good chunk of their check EVERY week.

That's the type of mentality that should be "cut a break?"

Take care,
PK

Again, I can't really argue with ya on this, PK. I'm not saying those people made the best choices in their lives. But neither did I...and for whatever reason, not as many of my bad choices came back to haunt me. I'm just more willing to see them get cut a break...that's all.

Fair enough, dude. Difference of opinion!

Take care,
PK

[bdunn13]

"doesn't work the obscene amount of hours and under the deadline pressures of someone designing software. "

Well, I write code for a living and its damn easy IMO I tell my friends all the time I am lucky to have come along when I did as there is no way I could be a salesman.


But then again, I did work hard to put myself where I am today. When I graduated from UGA, I got a job at Kroger stocking shelves for 5.70 an hour(you gotta do what you gotta do right?).

I then got a job as a cop at UGA(I was a CJ major). I was making I believe 9.25 an hour.... I thought I was rich!

Then, that did not work out - so after police academy and a couple of months on the job, I was unemployed.... I said screw it, I am going BACK to school...

So I went and got a second undergrad in Computer Science.... A few months ago I asked for a raise as I thought I was underpaid(although I made really good money).... Well, I got my raise this week, and it was bigger than my entire salary as a cop! I am very pleased! However, I did work hard to get here!

Heck, last month I made 1500 on the side doing odd programming jobs... That is not a lot of money, but it does pay for my toys....... I should not be punished for trying to pursue greater wealth and provide something better for my family.

[Brando70]

IMO, it completely misses the point to talk about who works harder. It is impossible to definitively make the case that rich people don't work hard and the government should take away more of their money for that reason. It is equally impossible to make the case that poor people work hard and deserve handouts. (And vice-versa for all other anecdotes)

The question is, in the absence of actual empirical evidence, what policy do we pursue?

The simplest explanation is usually the best one. More often than not, people making large incomes usually do so because of their intelligence, talent, and/or productivity. Other people tend not to get paid precisely because they fail to do so. This is Econ 101 stuff here.

Of course there are exceptions, and obviously some people start in a better place than others. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary of these basic economic principles, it is irresponsible for an organization as powerful as the federal government to arbitrarily decide to take money from one pocket and put it in another.

Or said differently, I guess you could say I don't agree with a blanket statement that those rich 'fu#@ers' should have to pay more and assume that they make extra money out of privilege.

Naples, that's a very well-argued point.

My issue with the arguments of some in this thread is that it sounds like government spending disproportionately benefits the poor -- that the rich pay all the taxes but get few of the benefits. That's where I disagree.

The very stability established by our government benefits the wealthy tremendously. The national security, international trading, business programs, and many government earmarks help the rich stay rich and become richer. The bailout program is also a perfect example -- while it certainly is supposed to help average Americans like me who have money in their 401ks, the biggest beneficiaries are the wealthy, because they have the most to lose from an unstable economic situation.

Also, there is almost no government program where my money is not helping someone else earn money. I don't believe in the war in Iraq, yet my taxes have paid for it and have gone to military contractors, who have gotten quite rich from it. Earmarks, scientific grants, foreign aid...all government spending is arbitrary to a certain extent and involves removing money from taxpayers and giving it to someone else. I've also received assistance in the form of educational aid and government-backed student loans when I went to college.

The point I'm trying to make is that supporting government involves paying into things you inevitably don't believe in. I don't have a problem with some of my tax money going to people who have less than I do. It's not making me poor and them rich any more than me giving $20 or even $100 to a homeless guy does. I do have a problem with some of the things my tax money does fund. But either way, I pay my taxes and use my vote to facilitate change toward a government I support. If Obama wins and this does take place, I certainly understand if people disagree with the refunds and work to change the government. But it doesn't mean the end of America or that we've become a socialistic country.

[GTHobbes]

Good post, Brando...very well said.

[Feanor]

I do not favor the flat tax program. My preference is no income tax.

Even better, a Negative Income Tax.

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

[pk500]

I do not favor the flat tax program. My preference is no income tax.

Even better, a Negative Income Tax.

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

That would create Fraud Central on a massive scale.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

Why should a guy who went to med school for seven years, slaved ridiculous hours as an intern before becoming a successful doctor and has the vital job of saving human lives be forced to fork over some of his money to some guy who works at the local video store for 40 hours a week after dropping out of high school and smokes dope and plays World of Warcraft all night?

That's f*cking insane!

That sounds like the typical anecdote told by Republican politicians to rail against social programs.

You know, outright made up or exaggerated.

But what, only successful people have "slaved ridiculous hours?"

And everyone making a lousy income is working some cush job waiting for a handout to finance a lazy lifestyle?

Not at all. But people make choices in their lives.

I started my career in journalism. I KNEW there wouldn't be any money in it; that was no mystery to me. The lack of dough and horrible hours forced me into PR, which gets few rich but still has more money than journalism.

But there's a simple fact that the socialist wing of the Democratic Party doesn't get: Life is a hell of a lot more of a meritocracy than a democracy.

No healthy person in America is predestined to any career. You make choices. If you decide to go to med school, chances are you're going to make more dough than a guy who paints stripes in parking lots. If you decide to work hard at Wal-Mart, you're simply not going to make as much as someone who works hard designing computer software, which is a more lucrative field.

Chances are, the person working at Wal-Mart does not have the same level of education as someone designing computer software. The person working at Wal-Mart probably doesn't work the obscene amount of hours and under the deadline pressures of someone designing software.

That's the way it is: Life is a meritocracy.

Everyone in America has the chance at higher education, especially the poor. There are countless grants and scholarships for the poor, especially poor minorities. But what percentage of the poor pursue those goals?

Again, another family example. My wife is the only member of her family to graduate from a four-year college. Her father was a small dairy farmer, and she got through college with a bunch of grants and loans. She worked her ass off and became successful in the mortgage field after college before leaving the workplace to be a full-time mother.

My wife's younger sister got even better grades than my wife in high school. Yet she dropped out of high school ONE SEMESTER short of graduation and has bounced from one low-paying job to another the last 20 years, getting pregnant when she was 19 and 21 and unmarried, etc., etc. Everyone tried to urge her to get her GED and go to community college, which she could have done pretty much for free due to low-income grants, etc.

But she refused. Now she has no money and blames the entire world for her problems, which all were spawned when she decided to quit school at 17.

People make choices. Then they must live with them.

Take care,
PK

Pretty extreme cases. Not everyone that works in a bad job made bad choices.

You think it's about personal choice. That's a pretty myopic view of the problems some people face.

You are trying to say but don't have the balls to say it, that the poor make bad choices on purpose.

[matthewk]

That would create Fraud Central on a massive scale.

And we already have a Wall Street

[XXXIV]

[You are trying to say but don't have the balls to say it, that the poor make bad choices on purpose.

Im glad you have the balls to read his mind.

[Naples39]

Brando,

Your post is entirely too reasonable. Frankly, I am uncomfortable responding to posts in this thread unless they are hyperbolic and borderline insulting.

I can't disagree with what you said, and this kind of changes the subject, but I will say is that it's one thing for government spend on programs we may not believe in, but handing out checks to individuals is something not just me, but most Americans have traditionally drawn the line at.

Suffice it to say that if most Americans who feel very reassured by Obama's 95% tax cut claim knew about the refundable tax credits resulting in checks to non-taxpayers his tax plan would have WAY less support 'on main street'. The fact that redistributing wealth may be desirable to some posters here and other staunch liberals is irrelevant to this point, which was the initial spark for the conversation about tax fairness in the first place.

[webdanzer]

Wow Rob, I expect crazy talk from some guys on this forum. I always thought you were better than that.

You think it's about personal choice. That's a pretty myopic view of the problems some people face.

You are trying to say but don't have the balls to say it, that the poor make bad choices on purpose.

Personal attacks?

[pk500]

Pretty extreme cases. Not everyone that works in a bad job made bad choices.

Pretty extreme cases? What bubble are you living in? These are pretty common cases.

You think it's about personal choice. That's a pretty myopic view of the problems some people face.

Indeed, there are many poor who have been dealt a bad hand through medical hardship and the like. But there are many who don't pursue opportunities presented or available to them.

If everyone who is poor has been screwed so badly, why do so many immigrants still come to America with next to nothing and make it in this country through lawful ventures and hard work?

You are trying to say but don't have the balls to say it, that the poor make bad choices on purpose.

Preposterous. The poor make bad choices due to lack of education, lack of desire or lack of societal incentive and motivation for excellence.

But I will say this: You're a f*cking idiot, one for trying to read my mind, and two, for suggesting that I lack the balls to do anything.

Jared, I'll willingly take the ban for as long as you see fit.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

Brando,

Your post is entirely too reasonable. Frankly, I am uncomfortable responding to posts in this thread unless they are hyperbolic and borderline insulting.

I can't disagree with what you said, and this kind of changes the subject, but I will say is that it's one thing for government spend on programs we may not believe in, but handing out checks to individuals is something not just me, but most Americans have traditionally drawn the line at.

Suffice it to say that if most Americans who feel very reassured by Obama's 95% tax cut claim knew about the refundable tax credits resulting in checks to non-taxpayers his tax plan would have WAY less support 'on main street'. The fact that redistributing wealth may be desirable to some posters here and other staunch liberals is irrelevant to this point, which was the initial spark for the conversation about tax fairness in the first place.

Naples did you receive you stimulus check?


No one is for a redistribution of wealth. Obama's plan is not that. It's been labeled that by the McCain camp to score points. He would tax certain people at different levels. Right now, the bigger question is how would Obama's and McCain tax cuts actually work since we are already in huge budget deficits. Essentially, the middle class aren't paying for the tax cuts -- no one is.

[matthewk]

You are trying to say but don't have the balls to say it, that the poor make bad choices on purpose.

Some do, some don't. Same goes for rich people.

I personally know people who have been on unemployment and have turned down or avoided jobs because it's easier to just get a check from the government while he/she plays on the 360 all day than to work for the money.

I'd rather our money get put into the economy the more "natural" way (i.e. without government intervention) than to have taken away and redistributed. If businesses are making money, they hire more people. I'd rather my money go to helping create a job for that poor unemployed person than for a refund check at the end of the year.

I'm not agasint ALL taxes. Unemployment benefits for example are a good thing, but they can be abused. I understand that not all of my tax money will be used for things I like. I've only had children for the psat eight years, but I was paying taxes for schools a lot ealier than that. What I do not like is the idea of penalizing someone for getting ahead and turning around and giving that same money to someone who did not contribute 1 cent in taxes.

If they want to spend my tax money on the poor, then put it good use. Find ways to use it to get people on their feet and working, not just handing out additional welfare.

[JRod]

Pretty extreme cases. Not everyone that works in a bad job made bad choices.

Pretty extreme cases? What bubble are you living in? These are pretty common cases.

You think it's about personal choice. That's a pretty myopic view of the problems some people face.

Indeed, there are many poor who have been dealt a bad hand through medical hardship and the like. But there are many who don't pursue opportunities presented or available to them.

You are trying to say but don't have the balls to say it, that the poor make bad choices on purpose.

Preposterous. The poor make bad choices due to lack of education, lack of desire or lack of societal incentive and motivation for excellence.

But I will say this: You're a f*cking idiot, one for trying to read my mind, and two, for suggesting that I lack the balls to do anything.

Jared, I'll willingly take the ban for as long as you see fit.

Take care,
PK

Then if their "bad choices" aren't solely a result of choice, your whole argument goes up in smoke. It's not really a choice, if it's an environmental influence, is it?

If they go to school, as mandated by states up to a certain age. In school they don't do well. They see no future, and with bad grades don't go to college or pass high school. And we are asking kids to see the world in this light, not mature adults but children then teenagers.

[matthewk]

No one is for a redistribution of wealth. Obama's plan is not that.

Did you not hear Obama's exact words? He said "I want to spread the wealth around". Those words came out of his mouth.

[XXXIV]

My issue with the arguments of some in this thread is that it sounds like government spending disproportionately benefits the poor -- that the rich pay all the taxes but get few of the benefits. That's where I disagree.

When I talk about government waste. I talk about government waste. Any of it and all of it. Anywhere its taking place.

This includes waste by the military and NASA. It includes pork like the garbage attached to bailout to get it through congress.

The Bush administration has been spending like theres no tomorrow(IRAQ). This is the s*** Im talking about.

I dont roll in class war. Thats for the big brains who read all them there manifestos and such.