|
Mercnbeth -> RE: O'reilly whines as FOX shuts door to AID (1/27/2010 10:20:21 AM)
|
quote:
There are the few exceptions in both directions, conservatives seem to be about maintaining the tax breaks for the wealthy for fear that 'talent' will go elsewhere What "tax breaks" exist for the "wealthy"? There is one - the tax right off of Real Estate interest. However you have to be able to afford the house to get it - Barney Frank and the other enablers forgot that part when they manipulated the market under the belief that every individual should be a homeowner if they qualified to afford it or not. The consequences are all around us. It points to the pragmatic result of attempts by government to manipulate the market, and managing to the expectations rather than the "whole".
Define "wealthy", is it relevant to income or assets?
quote:
think society should be looking to increase social mobility i.e. people are born equal and so their prospects shouldn’t be limited to how much their parents can afford to pay in terms of education. Have you talked or been around any of the results of the current "education" system? Paid for or not, they come having little to serve them in the business world. Self initiative should serve. No less an example of Bill Gates serves as an example that formal college education isn't a requirement to "increase social mobility" or to obtain wealth.
quote:
It also means that people born into the lower echelons of society should get the same level of healthcare as those in the upper echelons. It does? Why? Your original argument was to "benefit the whole". Charities are a source to fill the gaps. The government enables them to do so by given them tax exempt status not enjoyed by the majority of the "whole" having insurance. Are you changing your position about benefiting the whole and now saying that the insured majority, representing 90% of the whole in the most conservative estimate, must pay for the exceptional 10% "lower echelons"? How does that serve any other purpose but lowering the quality of life and the discretionary income of the greater "whole"?
quote:
The minority can't change their situation easily, how on earth do you change your situation if you can't afford training or education? It's a nonsense this idea that single individuals can go on this drastic course of self improvement and only need the will to do so. Your "nonsense" has countless examples of people who have done just that. Maybe the indoctrination of the public 'educational' system has made it more exceptional through enabling rationalizations for results. When everyone achieves an award, and everyone is promoted without earning graduation personal accountability suffers. The instant gratification expectation jades the perspective of working to change you situation over time. I agree changing you situation instantly can't and won't happen; over time with effort and determination is will. Few who spend time complaining about their present situation wants to work and wait for their efforts to materialize. Not only do they give excuses for doing so - they are further enabled by the 'good intent' providers telling them that its impossible to do so without interventions from a benevolent nanny State. A perfect storm to generate a self fulfilling prophecy.
quote:
Good government can achieve social change without spending a penny, they just have to look at their tax strategy and stop seeing it as only about paying the bills. I'd love to see any model which supports the claim that "good government can achieve social change without spending a penny", or any tax strategy that isn't driven by paying the bills for entitlement spending and the perpetuating bureaucracies formed.
quote:
who that burden should morally fall upon That would take you off the "benefiting the whole" concept and make it a more open ended debate about the "moral" responsibility of government. What is "moral" about the current federal corporate welfare system that pays farmers not to grow crops and limit milk production to support pricing while a percentage (you pick the number) of individuals goes hungry in the US? There is no "morality" associated with government only bureaucratic manipulation of goods and services pointed to benefit the bureaucrats more than the "whole" or even the exceptions.
"Morally" the government should stay out of social issues, marriage, 'good' and 'bad' drugs, personal choice for what a person does with their body including decisions regarding any 'bodies' existing on parasitic life support from a host. Morally a national government should defend the borders, police against crime of property, set up reciprocal trade tariffs, monitor the infrastructure, build new as needed, and send me a proportionate bill based on income. Health, education, housing, food, transportation, for the individuals are not a "moral" responsibility of government. Equal access doesn't not mean equal results or equality. I'm confident we have little common ground there.
|
|
|
|
