|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 21, 2010 8:52:50 GMT -8
Responding to waztec: You have, inadvertently I suppose, touched on an important point in this discussion. Perhaps I did not make this point clear. The United States of America was founded on the following fundamental idea. Every citizen has the right, to the maximum degree consistent with an orderly, non-violent society, to deal freely with any other citizen or citizens. What you suggest in the following excerpt from your post suggests something quite different. . . Who are you to say (with any more authority than the rest of us) that government is, in fact, not doing what it has been told to do by the people? I would ask you to ask citizens about the programs that affect them and the laws that protect them. If you ask those questions on a program by program basis, you might not like the answer. Well, whether I like the answer or not is less important than whether the question is valid in the first place. We get back to the fundamental issue of what the government should try to do. There are a number of functions that virtually all citizens would agree are to be carried out by the government. One is policing. Sure, it would be possible for individuals to hire their own policemen/bodyguards. That system has been tried, with something less than excellent results; it's called the Dark Ages!  We need a legislature to pass laws. (Yes. there must be laws!)We need a court system to try citizens accused of crimes. We need a military to defend our shores. Once we go beyond that we get into the slippery slope area. Few would want to do away with pure food and drug laws, but just because the government says a piece of meet or a bottle cough syrup is okay to consume does not make it so. Once the government sets out to make life safe for us, trouble begins. It begins because government, although it must do certain things, is well suited for some tasks and poorly for others. Now, let's get back to your question as to whether the "people" support certain programs. Well, what do you mean by "people"? Presumably, you would never hold that any given government program is supported by 100% of the people. Therefore, you must mean that a given program is supported by a majority of the people. But that's just the problem. As long as an issue is decided by majority rule, there will always be many who are opposed, many bitterly opposed to what ever government program or action is being contemplated. Sometimes that is unavoidable. The election for Pres.of the U.S. could, theoretically, hinge on the vote of a single voter. That is almost certainly not ever going to happen, but it's possible. And we have had election for Pres, such as 1960 and 2000 which were very, very close. There's no way around that, since SOMEBODY has to be President, and that mean one particular candidate. But isn't it better to have as many issues as possible decided by the free choice of individual Americans rather than have the decision made by a vote of a legislature or a national plebiscite? Here's an example, a wildly exaggerated one, but I think it will serve to make my point. Let's take ice-cream flavors. Let's say that there is a federal ice-cream agency that is going to make ice-cream available to everyone free of charge. But what flavor to choose? The ice-cream Czar decides it will be one of these flavors; vanilla, chocolate, or pineapple. The people vote. . . it's chocolate! Immediately, those in favor of the other flavors begin to demonstrate and cause major trouble. Maybe even a pro-vanilla and strawberry national boycott. Sure, that's a ridiculous exaggeration. Why not just let everyone choose for himself? you say. And that would indeed be a better solution. Ice-cream may be a bad example, but how about health insurance plans? In 2014 the feds will tell you that you must choose between four plans that they, the bureaucrats, have designed. You will not be allowed to buy others. Yes, the ice-cream example was silly, but why is the government taking away my right to deal freely with insurance companies. (Those companies will now effectively become adjuncts to the federal government, by the way.) Majority rule should apply in as few areas of life as possible. Free choices by individuals should be the default in the great majority of cases. Unfortunately, the Left does not feel that way. They see the government as making choices for the people since the government is - - - oh, I don't know - - - smarter, more enlightened, more virtuous than the unwashed masses. In short, I stand for freedom, the Left stands for top-down mandates. But, of course, the latter are sure that it's all in the best interest of the people! AzWm AztecWilliam, that was a Great Post. I believe that the government has an obligation to serve in the best interest of its citizens when they cannot pursue life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in the face of huge forces over which they have no control. Government by democracy, in this country, is in its essence a collaboration of like minded people in the pursuit of mutual benefit, a benefit that they would be unable to achieve on their own. Conservatives would say that individual effort is sufficient to guarantee life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Horatio Alger). I say human beings coalesced into groups precisely because that is untrue. America was an attempt to counteract huge external forces and power by making people supreme. It must therefore act to maintain their supremacy. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 21, 2010 10:21:09 GMT -8
I frequently criticize the Left. I'm not the only one to do that, of course. The main thing I don't like about the Left (which, let's face it, means the Democratic Party in practical terms) is that those who hold the views of the Left seem to have no internal governor that ever, ever says, You know, I think this is going too far; this is too much power taken from the people and given to the government. Oh, sure, if you put that question to a Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, or Bernie Sanders, each would probably deny the charge. (Well, maybe not in the case of Sanders!  ) But have you ever heard any Democratic officeholder ever speak out in public in favor of limited government? Don't they always speak in favor of what the government can do for people? Look, these folks really believe that the government is capable of providing endless amounts of services to "help" the people. They never seem to realize that this country was founded on the belief that government, if not strictly limited, would always go too far. Furthermore, why do they believe that they know just what does and does not help the people? Consider welfare. Who would seriously deny that many poor women were discouraged from getting married to their male companions largely because if they did so they would lose benefits? This is just one of (literally) countless unintended consequences that flow from over-ambitious government actions. And once such problematic laws are in place, it is very hard to repeal or amend them since powerful political interest groups will fight like hell to prevent such corrective actions. (Just another reason why the private sector is superior in almost all cases. The freedom to react quickly to changing circumstances is what makes a free enterprise system more efficient than one in which changes cannot be effected without lengthy political machinations.) Why should the government be in the business of giving out goodies to various interest groups? I just don't get it. But, then, I don't believe in the concept of "social justice," so I guess I'm a hopelessly retrograde case. (Look! See there how my knuckles drag on the floor as it walk! ;D) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 21, 2010 10:32:35 GMT -8
I frequently criticize the Left. I'm not the only one to do that, of course. The main thing I don't like about the Left (which, let's face it, means the Democratic Party in practical terms) is that those who hold the views of the Left seem to have no internal governor that ever, ever says, You know, I think this is going too far; this is too much power taken from the people and given to the government. Oh, sure, if you put that question to a Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, or Bernie Sanders, each would probably deny the charge. (Well, maybe not in the case of Sanders! ) But have you ever heard any Democratic officeholder ever speak out in public in favor of limited government? Don't they always speak in favor of what the government can do for people? Look, these folks really believe that the government is capable of providing endless amounts of services to "help" the people. They never seem to realize that this country was founded on the belief that government, if not strictly limited, would always go too far. Furthermore, why do they believe that they know just what does and does not help the people? Consider welfare. Who would seriously deny that many poor women were discouraged from getting married to their male companions largely because if they did so they would lose benefits? This is just one of (literally) countless unintended consequences that flow from over-ambitious government actions. And once such problematic laws are in place, it is very hard to repeal or amend them since powerful political interest groups will fight like hell to prevent such corrective actions. (Just another reason why the private sector is superior in almost all cases. The freedom to react quickly to changing circumstances is what makes a free enterprise system more efficient than one in which changes cannot be effected without lengthy political machinations.) Why should the government be in the business of giving out goodies to various interest groups? I just don't get it. But, then, I don't believe in the concept of "social justice," so I guess I'm a hopelessly retrograde case. (Look! See there how my knuckles drag on the floor as it walk! ;D) AzWm No, William, you do not get it. No problem, though, we liberals always let those less fortunate than us come along for ride. That would include libertarian thinkers. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 21, 2010 11:09:56 GMT -8
Aztec7o, that is not exactly a satisfying response to the many points I have made in this thread. In fact, it's close to plea of nolo contendere! AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 21, 2010 13:07:20 GMT -8
I frequently criticize the Left. I'm not the only one to do that, of course. The main thing I don't like about the Left (which, let's face it, means the Democratic Party in practical terms) is that those who hold the views of the Left seem to have no internal governor that ever, ever says, You know, I think this is going too far; this is too much power taken from the people and given to the government. Oh, sure, if you put that question to a Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, or Bernie Sanders, each would probably deny the charge. (Well, maybe not in the case of Sanders! ) But have you ever heard any Democratic officeholder ever speak out in public in favor of limited government? Don't they always speak in favor of what the government can do for people? Look, these folks really believe that the government is capable of providing endless amounts of services to "help" the people. They never seem to realize that this country was founded on the belief that government, if not strictly limited, would always go too far. Furthermore, why do they believe that they know just what does and does not help the people? Consider welfare. Who would seriously deny that many poor women were discouraged from getting married to their male companions largely because if they did so they would lose benefits? This is just one of (literally) countless unintended consequences that flow from over-ambitious government actions. And once such problematic laws are in place, it is very hard to repeal or amend them since powerful political interest groups will fight like hell to prevent such corrective actions. (Just another reason why the private sector is superior in almost all cases. The freedom to react quickly to changing circumstances is what makes a free enterprise system more efficient than one in which changes cannot be effected without lengthy political machinations.) Why should the government be in the business of giving out goodies to various interest groups? I just don't get it. But, then, I don't believe in the concept of "social justice," so I guess I'm a hopelessly retrograde case. (Look! See there how my knuckles drag on the floor as it walk! ;D) AzWm I guess where we differ is in our faith in the private sector. I think the private sector is interested only in the profit of the private sector. I watch, with horror as I see my sons literally abused in their jobs for pay that makes me gasp. I am concerned that no matter how hard they work (and they work hard) they don't have a real chance. I see no real income growth. I saw my father raise a family on one income and in forty years of work, I have never been able duplicate that feat. I am astonished that I do well enough, thanks to my wife, to actually desire an increase in my taxes. I see individuals forced to carry more of the load, individual by individual, on retirement issues, health insurance, education and job security, when the winds of economic change buffet them about like dried leaves. I see high school graduates forced to make financial decisions, on their own that would stymie an Phd in finance, because there is no one, who wouldn't be in their pocket, to assist. I see people who are told that they are lazy, because they cannot find a job. I see powerful people who say in public that they want to send American jobs someplace else, but still want us to consume what they sell. And some of them are running to represent you! I see wealth differentials that mimic countries we used to laugh at and deride for just that reason. I see people scrambling to keep up with skill changes and refused for employment because their skills are considered outdated in just a few months. I see 50 year old souls begging for work who have no chance, none mind you, of ever being hired in private industry again. I see individuals elbowed out of the political process, by the entities empowered to see that justice occurs, because they don't have millions of dollars to spend to run for office or contribute. And then they are castigated for banning together in unions to even the playing field. They are excoriated, belittled and told they are the enemy of the economy and of America, because they are seeking the same GD self interest the corporation does. My mother, a genius, used to lament that she was smart enough to know what was really happening to her. I have learned, the hard way, exactly what she meant. So, I am a liberal, because I see what I see. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 21, 2010 13:50:54 GMT -8
One big problem with liberalism is that it doesn't factor in motivation. What motivates people to work at all, let alone work hard? What incentives are there that make people more productive?
Liberalism goes in the wrong direction when it comes to incentives and motivation. Give people stuff (health care, food subsidies, housing subsidies, etc) for, "Free," and see how hard they (don't) work. Why work hard when the government is subsidizing you so you can get by without the hard work?
What incentive would there be for pharmecutical companies to come up with new drugs if their profit were taken away (which most good liberals seem to want to do). Take the profit away and there's no reason for them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on R&D.
Motivation and incentives - key ingredients in growing the economy - are left out of most liberals' economic plans.
I've always said that we need a good, strong, liberal minority to keep the right from going too far, but no one on the left ever seems at all concerned about the reverse. When liberals take things too far it's much harder to undo (yeah, just try taking away social programs that people have come to rely on) than when conservatives start pushing the envelope.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 21, 2010 14:03:58 GMT -8
One big problem with liberalism is that it doesn't factor in motivation. What motivates people to work at all, let alone work hard? What incentives are there that make people more productive? Liberalism goes in the wrong direction when it comes to incentives and motivation. Give people stuff (health care, food subsidies, housing subsidies, etc) for, "Free," and see how hard they (don't) work. Why work hard when the government is subsidizing you so you can get by without the hard work? What incentive would there be for pharmecutical companies to come up with new drugs if their profit were taken away (which most good liberals seem to want to do). Take the profit away and there's no reason for them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on R&D. Motivation and incentives - key ingredients in growing the economy - are left out of most liberals' economic plans. I've always said that we need a good, strong, liberal minority to keep the right from going too far, but no one on the left ever seems at all concerned about the reverse. When liberals take things too far it's much harder to undo (yeah, just try taking away social programs that people have come to rely on) than when conservatives start pushing the envelope. Huh? The Right has done such a good job that the middle class, which was created from such progressive ideas such as the GI Bill, is quickly disappearing. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 21, 2010 14:19:16 GMT -8
One big problem with liberalism is that it doesn't factor in motivation. What motivates people to work at all, let alone work hard? What incentives are there that make people more productive? Liberalism goes in the wrong direction when it comes to incentives and motivation. Give people stuff (health care, food subsidies, housing subsidies, etc) for, "Free," and see how hard they (don't) work. Why work hard when the government is subsidizing you so you can get by without the hard work? What incentive would there be for pharmecutical companies to come up with new drugs if their profit were taken away (which most good liberals seem to want to do). Take the profit away and there's no reason for them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on R&D. Motivation and incentives - key ingredients in growing the economy - are left out of most liberals' economic plans. I've always said that we need a good, strong, liberal minority to keep the right from going too far, but no one on the left ever seems at all concerned about the reverse. When liberals take things too far it's much harder to undo (yeah, just try taking away social programs that people have come to rely on) than when conservatives start pushing the envelope. Huh? The Right has done such a good job that the middle class, which was created from such progressive ideas such as the GI Bill, is quickly disappearing. People have been saying that the middle class has been disappearing since the Carter administration (back when the Democrats owned both houses and the White House). Tax cuts don't diminish the middle class. Tax cuts for small businesses BUILD UP the middle class. And tax cuts for everyone who actually pays taxes (re: "The rich") frees up money for investment, which in turn helps the economy grow and creates jobs. Creating more social programs only creates a dependency class that cannot surivive without big brother giving them their checks every month. Once people start getting these checks or subsidies they become dependent on them very quickly. That's what the liberals have done. What we need are more opportunities, not more social programs (free stuff). More tax and spend policies will hurt the economy, not help it. The government (at all levels) is too big and tries to do too much. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 21, 2010 14:51:33 GMT -8
I frequently criticize the Left. I'm not the only one to do that, of course. The main thing I don't like about the Left (which, let's face it, means the Democratic Party in practical terms) is that those who hold the views of the Left seem to have no internal governor that ever, ever says, You know, I think this is going too far; this is too much power taken from the people and given to the government. Oh, sure, if you put that question to a Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, or Bernie Sanders, each would probably deny the charge. (Well, maybe not in the case of Sanders! ) But have you ever heard any Democratic officeholder ever speak out in public in favor of limited government? Don't they always speak in favor of what the government can do for people? Look, these folks really believe that the government is capable of providing endless amounts of services to "help" the people. They never seem to realize that this country was founded on the belief that government, if not strictly limited, would always go too far. Furthermore, why do they believe that they know just what does and does not help the people? Consider welfare. Who would seriously deny that many poor women were discouraged from getting married to their male companions largely because if they did so they would lose benefits? This is just one of (literally) countless unintended consequences that flow from over-ambitious government actions. And once such problematic laws are in place, it is very hard to repeal or amend them since powerful political interest groups will fight like hell to prevent such corrective actions. (Just another reason why the private sector is superior in almost all cases. The freedom to react quickly to changing circumstances is what makes a free enterprise system more efficient than one in which changes cannot be effected without lengthy political machinations.) Why should the government be in the business of giving out goodies to various interest groups? I just don't get it. But, then, I don't believe in the concept of "social justice," so I guess I'm a hopelessly retrograde case. (Look! See there how my knuckles drag on the floor as it walk! ;D) AzWm No, William, you do not get it. No problem, though, we liberals always let those less fortunate than us come along for ride. That would include libertarian thinkers. 70, I think you should rephrase that a little. "No problem, we liberals are always glad to go along for the ride as long as Conservatives are footing the bill" would be closer to what the truth is. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 21, 2010 14:55:03 GMT -8
One big problem with liberalism is that it doesn't factor in motivation. What motivates people to work at all, let alone work hard? What incentives are there that make people more productive? Liberalism goes in the wrong direction when it comes to incentives and motivation. Give people stuff (health care, food subsidies, housing subsidies, etc) for, "Free," and see how hard they (don't) work. Why work hard when the government is subsidizing you so you can get by without the hard work? What incentive would there be for pharmecutical companies to come up with new drugs if their profit were taken away (which most good liberals seem to want to do). Take the profit away and there's no reason for them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on R&D. Motivation and incentives - key ingredients in growing the economy - are left out of most liberals' economic plans. I've always said that we need a good, strong, liberal minority to keep the right from going too far, but no one on the left ever seems at all concerned about the reverse. When liberals take things too far it's much harder to undo (yeah, just try taking away social programs that people have come to rely on) than when conservatives start pushing the envelope. What would you say that the private sector is doing now that offers anyone motivation to do better and succeed? Economic conservatives make the mistake of thinking that people are only motivated by financial incentives and that a person's worth to America is a function of their earning power. That is important to you. It may not be important to a social worker making $30,000 per year or certainly a teacher, who often makes less than that but works harder. They just want to have a good job that feeds them and gives them some personal reward. I laugh, for example, when you conservatives rail at universities, because there are no conservatives there. They are not there because that kind of work does not offer them the financial satisfaction that they crave. And I know what instructors make, my father-in-law and brother-in-law are college instructors. Someone like you, who is competitive, likes financial rewards and thinks those rewards are great. More power to you. But why should anyone else care? Yes I know, you have to pay taxes. You have to share with those who do not understand the burden placed on you by success. I get it. When you say that liberals do not understand incentives, I would say that I am as competitive as you, probably more. And I work my ass off. I have worked forty five to sixty hours per week for forty two years. I went to college pursuing degrees three different times at night after eleven hour days, with one hundred and ten mile commutes. Actually, I am a nasty bastard who took particular, derisive pleasure at performing with the too often intellectually limited, generally conservative, f up business majors who were in class with me, with a quarter of the studying. I would literally laugh when they would play around in class while I was paying attention to a subject I did not like. So, I know where your thinking goes. I am as good at sticking it to a fool as any conservative. I think that way too. But, some people can take an a&& kicking and some can't and that is why I am a liberal.
So, this is not about motivating anyone. You can't motivate anyone externally. Keep trying, though. It is about caring enough for people to make it possible for them to live and retire with dignity and to have some power against much stronger forces. If you are economically focused you might not get that. Thats ok. The world needs conservatives too. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 21, 2010 14:56:45 GMT -8
One big problem with liberalism is that it doesn't factor in motivation. What motivates people to work at all, let alone work hard? What incentives are there that make people more productive? Liberalism goes in the wrong direction when it comes to incentives and motivation. Give people stuff (health care, food subsidies, housing subsidies, etc) for, "Free," and see how hard they (don't) work. Why work hard when the government is subsidizing you so you can get by without the hard work? What incentive would there be for pharmecutical companies to come up with new drugs if their profit were taken away (which most good liberals seem to want to do). Take the profit away and there's no reason for them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on R&D. Motivation and incentives - key ingredients in growing the economy - are left out of most liberals' economic plans. I've always said that we need a good, strong, liberal minority to keep the right from going too far, but no one on the left ever seems at all concerned about the reverse. When liberals take things too far it's much harder to undo (yeah, just try taking away social programs that people have come to rely on) than when conservatives start pushing the envelope. Liberalism is not about giving people things. It is about protecting people from those that have unwarranted power over them. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 21, 2010 15:03:57 GMT -8
No, William, you do not get it. No problem, though, we liberals always let those less fortunate than us come along for ride. That would include libertarian thinkers. 70, I think you should rephrase that a little. "No problem, we liberals are always glad to go along for the ride as long as Conservatives are footing the bill" would be closer to what the truth is. Gee, win, according to Kiplinger my wife and I are in the top 10% of taxpayers. How does that fit into your conservative mantra? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 21, 2010 15:06:02 GMT -8
I frequently criticize the Left. I'm not the only one to do that, of course. The main thing I don't like about the Left (which, let's face it, means the Democratic Party in practical terms) is that those who hold the views of the Left seem to have no internal governor that ever, ever says, You know, I think this is going too far; this is too much power taken from the people and given to the government. Oh, sure, if you put that question to a Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, or Bernie Sanders, each would probably deny the charge. (Well, maybe not in the case of Sanders! ) But have you ever heard any Democratic officeholder ever speak out in public in favor of limited government? Don't they always speak in favor of what the government can do for people? Look, these folks really believe that the government is capable of providing endless amounts of services to "help" the people. They never seem to realize that this country was founded on the belief that government, if not strictly limited, would always go too far. Furthermore, why do they believe that they know just what does and does not help the people? Consider welfare. Who would seriously deny that many poor women were discouraged from getting married to their male companions largely because if they did so they would lose benefits? This is just one of (literally) countless unintended consequences that flow from over-ambitious government actions. And once such problematic laws are in place, it is very hard to repeal or amend them since powerful political interest groups will fight like hell to prevent such corrective actions. (Just another reason why the private sector is superior in almost all cases. The freedom to react quickly to changing circumstances is what makes a free enterprise system more efficient than one in which changes cannot be effected without lengthy political machinations.) Why should the government be in the business of giving out goodies to various interest groups? I just don't get it. But, then, I don't believe in the concept of "social justice," so I guess I'm a hopelessly retrograde case. (Look! See there how my knuckles drag on the floor as it walk! ;D) AzWm I guess where we differ is in our faith in the private sector. I think the private sector is interested only in the profit of the private sector. I watch, with horror as I see my sons literally abused in their jobs for pay that makes me gasp. I am concerned that no matter how hard they work (and they work hard) they don't have a real chance. I see no real income growth. I saw my father raise a family on one income and in forty years of work, I have never been able duplicate that feat. I am astonished that I do well enough, thanks to my wife, to actually desire an increase in my taxes. I see individuals forced to carry more of the load, individual by individual, on retirement issues, health insurance, education and job security, when the winds of economic change buffet them about like dried leaves. I see high school graduates forced to make financial decisions, on their own that would stymie an Phd in finance, because there is no one, who wouldn't be in their pocket, to assist. I see people who are told that they are lazy, because they cannot find a job. I see powerful people who say in public that they want to send American jobs someplace else, but still want us to consume what they sell. And some of them are running to represent you! I see wealth differentials that mimic countries we used to laugh at and deride for just that reason. I see people scrambling to keep up with skill changes and refused for employment because their skills are considered outdated in just a few months. I see 50 year old souls begging for work who have no chance, none mind you, of ever being hired in private industry again. I see individuals elbowed out of the political process, by the entities empowered to see that justice occurs, because they don't have millions of dollars to spend to run for office or contribute. And then they are castigated for banning together in unions to even the playing field. They are excoriated, belittled and told they are the enemy of the economy and of America, because they are seeking the same GD self interest the corporation does. My mother, a genius, used to lament that she was smart enough to know what was really happening to her. I have learned, the hard way, exactly what she meant. So, I am a liberal, because I see what I see. I see a bit of playing the victim in your words. I relish the fact that I was able to raise my family on just my income and some of that was on mid grade Navy enlisted pay. (I married a woman after my first wife had passed on who had her own career and own home. That made it easier, but the heavy lifting was done with one bread winner.) I am proud that I have been able to do as well or better than my parents. We lived within our means and saved and invested even when things were tight for us. I see no reason that most of us can't do the same. My children have all been able to do the same. The shipping of jobs off shore is not done by choice, but by necessity. You can not stay in business and compete when unions and layers of regulations make you non-competitive. They do what they have to do to turn a profit for their shareholders and stay in business. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 21, 2010 15:16:43 GMT -8
One big problem with liberalism is that it doesn't factor in motivation. What motivates people to work at all, let alone work hard? What incentives are there that make people more productive? Liberalism goes in the wrong direction when it comes to incentives and motivation. Give people stuff (health care, food subsidies, housing subsidies, etc) for, "Free," and see how hard they (don't) work. Why work hard when the government is subsidizing you so you can get by without the hard work? What incentive would there be for pharmecutical companies to come up with new drugs if their profit were taken away (which most good liberals seem to want to do). Take the profit away and there's no reason for them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on R&D. Motivation and incentives - key ingredients in growing the economy - are left out of most liberals' economic plans. I've always said that we need a good, strong, liberal minority to keep the right from going too far, but no one on the left ever seems at all concerned about the reverse. When liberals take things too far it's much harder to undo (yeah, just try taking away social programs that people have come to rely on) than when conservatives start pushing the envelope. Erik, check out Warren Buffet's politics. He is a liberal. How does that fit into you motivation and incentives screed. A little closer to home. Me. I own my business and have for almost thirty year. How does an unmotivated liberal do that? When I file my tax return I will be one of those top 10% of tax payers. How does that fit your life view? Of course, it is possible that Warren Buffet and I are the only liberals not on welfare.  Now that would fit the straw man world you concoct. ;D Not to say that my net worth is anything like Buffet's. Mine would hardly be a rounding difference compared to his. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 21, 2010 15:22:44 GMT -8
One big problem with liberalism is that it doesn't factor in motivation. What motivates people to work at all, let alone work hard? What incentives are there that make people more productive? Liberalism goes in the wrong direction when it comes to incentives and motivation. Give people stuff (health care, food subsidies, housing subsidies, etc) for, "Free," and see how hard they (don't) work. Why work hard when the government is subsidizing you so you can get by without the hard work? What incentive would there be for pharmecutical companies to come up with new drugs if their profit were taken away (which most good liberals seem to want to do). Take the profit away and there's no reason for them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on R&D. Motivation and incentives - key ingredients in growing the economy - are left out of most liberals' economic plans. I've always said that we need a good, strong, liberal minority to keep the right from going too far, but no one on the left ever seems at all concerned about the reverse. When liberals take things too far it's much harder to undo (yeah, just try taking away social programs that people have come to rely on) than when conservatives start pushing the envelope. What would you say that the private sector is doing now that offers anyone motivation to do better and succeed? Well, I know that in my field (insurance) hard work is rewarded with higher pay and greater job security. Job security is quite an incentive, as is higher pay. Hogwash. College teachers make at least 50% more than I do. I'd love to be a college history teacher, for example, but I've never been able to finish my degree due to scheduling conflicts between work and school. Guess what? I'm just barely scraping by financially. I'm not all that successful. I'm just successful enough that I don't consider myself to be a failure. I pay a lot of money in taxes, but don't really get anything back for those taxes. If that money were only going to law enforcement, national security, and education I wouldn't have a problem with it. But a large percentage of that money is going to people who aren't trying to get jobs, who aren't working to better themselves, and frankly I could use that money to support my own family. So why punish hard work and achievement? When someone works their ass off and becomes successful they shouldn't get punished by having their tax rate increased. That's a nice thought - too bad the liberals in power don't seem to share it. They're all about tax and spend. It's all about coming up with the new government giveaway that will guarantee them votes from the people who become dependent on those subsidies. Instead of increasing the middle class the Democrats have increased the dependency class. I have no problem with creating regulations that don't allow companies to unfairly take advantage of people. I have no problem with regulations that protect the public - as long as they are reasonable and allow businesses to succeed. But look at California. Businesses have been leaving the state by the truckload because of the overregulation and overtaxation here. That is what will happen to the country at large if those programs and policies are adopted nationwide. The U.S. will become a third world country as we lose more and more businesses. There has to be a balance. Yes, we need regulation to keep businesses from hurting the little guy, but we also need to allow them to make a decent profit (otherwise they will leave and do their business elsewhere). Liberals seem to love the former (increasing regulation), but hate the latter (allowing businesses to make decent profits). Most liberals in power have never run businesses of their own (many have never even worked in the private sector), so they have no idea how the economy works in the real world. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 21, 2010 15:29:19 GMT -8
One big problem with liberalism is that it doesn't factor in motivation. What motivates people to work at all, let alone work hard? What incentives are there that make people more productive? Liberalism goes in the wrong direction when it comes to incentives and motivation. Give people stuff (health care, food subsidies, housing subsidies, etc) for, "Free," and see how hard they (don't) work. Why work hard when the government is subsidizing you so you can get by without the hard work? What incentive would there be for pharmecutical companies to come up with new drugs if their profit were taken away (which most good liberals seem to want to do). Take the profit away and there's no reason for them to spend tens or even hundreds of millions on R&D. Motivation and incentives - key ingredients in growing the economy - are left out of most liberals' economic plans. I've always said that we need a good, strong, liberal minority to keep the right from going too far, but no one on the left ever seems at all concerned about the reverse. When liberals take things too far it's much harder to undo (yeah, just try taking away social programs that people have come to rely on) than when conservatives start pushing the envelope. Erik, check out Warren Buffet's politics. He is a liberal. Yeah, and I about wanted to punch him in the face when he said that Californians were undertaxed when it came to property taxes. Like we aren't taxed enough already in several other areas that many states don't tax at all. And like our property values weren't two to three times of those other areas he was pointing out as examples (meaning our total tax dollars are equal to or higher than theirs). Buffett is totally cut off from reality. Having as much money as he has had for so long he doesn't know what it's like to be 40 and in the middle class - because he hasn't been in the middle class since he was in his 20's. I'll bet you could grow your business and hire another worker or two if you kept more of your money rather than paying it out in excessive taxes. And I'll bet mine would be a rounding difference compared to yours, so where does that fit me in when it comes to your view of conservatives? My lot in life was created by me. My mistakes were my mistakes. I'm not taking ANY public assistance from the government, even though I probably qualify for it. I'm not going to make anyone else pay for my bad judgment - even if I was only 19 at the time and didn't know jack. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 21, 2010 15:39:10 GMT -8
I guess where we differ is in our faith in the private sector. I think the private sector is interested only in the profit of the private sector. I watch, with horror as I see my sons literally abused in their jobs for pay that makes me gasp. I am concerned that no matter how hard they work (and they work hard) they don't have a real chance. I see no real income growth. I saw my father raise a family on one income and in forty years of work, I have never been able duplicate that feat. I am astonished that I do well enough, thanks to my wife, to actually desire an increase in my taxes. I see individuals forced to carry more of the load, individual by individual, on retirement issues, health insurance, education and job security, when the winds of economic change buffet them about like dried leaves. I see high school graduates forced to make financial decisions, on their own that would stymie an Phd in finance, because there is no one, who wouldn't be in their pocket, to assist. I see people who are told that they are lazy, because they cannot find a job. I see powerful people who say in public that they want to send American jobs someplace else, but still want us to consume what they sell. And some of them are running to represent you! I see wealth differentials that mimic countries we used to laugh at and deride for just that reason. I see people scrambling to keep up with skill changes and refused for employment because their skills are considered outdated in just a few months. I see 50 year old souls begging for work who have no chance, none mind you, of ever being hired in private industry again. I see individuals elbowed out of the political process, by the entities empowered to see that justice occurs, because they don't have millions of dollars to spend to run for office or contribute. And then they are castigated for banning together in unions to even the playing field. They are excoriated, belittled and told they are the enemy of the economy and of America, because they are seeking the same GD self interest the corporation does. My mother, a genius, used to lament that she was smart enough to know what was really happening to her. I have learned, the hard way, exactly what she meant. So, I am a liberal, because I see what I see. I see a bit of playing the victim in your words. I relish the fact that I was able to raise my family on just my income and some of that was on mid grade Navy enlisted pay. (I married a woman after my first wife had passed on who had her own career and own home. That made it easier, but the heavy lifting was done with one bread winner.) I am proud that I have been able to do as well or better than my parents. We lived within our means and saved and invested even when things were tight for us. I see no reason that most of us can't do the same. My children have all been able to do the same. The shipping of jobs off shore is not done by choice, but by necessity. You can not stay in business and compete when unions and layers of regulations make you non-competitive. They do what they have to do to turn a profit for their shareholders and stay in business. Believe me Win, I am no victim. I am concerned about other people not me. My reference to two incomes is a statement of the condition about the economy not my personal financial status. If it were me, I would love to compete one up with conservatives. Read my subsequent post about that. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 21, 2010 16:00:13 GMT -8
What would you say that the private sector is doing now that offers anyone motivation to do better and succeed? Well, I know that in my field (insurance) hard work is rewarded with higher pay and greater job security. Job security is quite an incentive, as is higher pay. And yet, you agree with people who would make your co-citizen's less secureHogwash. College teachers make at least 50% more than I do. I'd love to be a college history teacher, for example, but I've never been able to finish my degree due to scheduling conflicts between work and school. So, like a good conservative, I would suggest that you get a PHD and teach. Your posts indicate that you are smart enough to do it.
Guess what? I'm just barely scraping by financially. I'm not all that successful. I'm just successful enough that I don't consider myself to be a failure. I pay a lot of money in taxes, but don't really get anything back for those taxes. If that money were only going to law enforcement, national security, and education I wouldn't have a problem with it. But a large percentage of that money is going to people who aren't trying to get jobs, who aren't working to better themselves, and frankly I could use that money to support my own family. I am successful, I guess. It took me 37 of my forty two work years to get there (with thanks to my wife). My guess is that you will be too.So why punish hard work and achievement? When someone works their ass off and becomes successful they shouldn't get punished by having their tax rate increased. I would suggest that paying taxes is not punishment, because you benefit as much as the people you malign.
That's a nice thought - too bad the liberals in power don't seem to share it. They're all about tax and spend. It's all about coming up with the new government giveaway that will guarantee them votes from the people who become dependent on those subsidies. I just have to disagree, because my money is going there just like yours. So, I have a dog in this hunt too.Instead of increasing the middle class the Democrats have increased the dependency class. The greatest increases in the middle class have occurred in Democratic administrations.I have no problem with creating regulations that don't allow companies to unfairly take advantage of people. I have no problem with regulations that protect the public - as long as they are reasonable and allow businesses to succeed Fair enough.
But look at California. Businesses have been leaving the state by the truckload because of the overregulation and overtaxation here. That is what will happen to the country at large if those programs and policies are adopted nationwide. The U.S. will become a third world country as we lose more and more businesses. I disagree.There has to be a balance. Yes, we need regulation to keep businesses from hurting the little guy, but we also need to allow them to make a decent profit (otherwise they will leave and do their business elsewhere). Liberals seem to love the former (increasing regulation), but hate the latter (allowing businesses to make decent profits). Most liberals in power have never run businesses of their own (many have never even worked in the private sector), so they have no idea how the economy works in the real world. I have run, barber shops, beauty shops vending machine operations, laundry and dry cleaning businesses, gift stores. I rented videos, ran hotels, food service businesses, retail stores, etc. Success in business requires a solid high school diploma, common sense, sufficient capital, the right product and a willingness to work. What is wrong with working in the public sector? Does that automatically make you stupid? The people I know who work in the public sector are often smarter and harder working than the private sector people I have know. And I know some pretty powerful private sector people as it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 21, 2010 17:32:31 GMT -8
Erik, check out Warren Buffet's politics. He is a liberal. Yeah, and I about wanted to punch him in the face when he said that Californians were undertaxed when it came to property taxes. Like we aren't taxed enough already in several other areas that many states don't tax at all. And like our property values weren't two to three times of those other areas he was pointing out as examples (meaning our total tax dollars are equal to or higher than theirs). Buffett is totally cut off from reality. Having as much money as he has had for so long he doesn't know what it's like to be 40 and in the middle class - because he hasn't been in the middle class since he was in his 20's. I'll bet you could grow your business and hire another worker or two if you kept more of your money rather than paying it out in excessive taxes. And I'll bet mine would be a rounding difference compared to yours, so where does that fit me in when it comes to your view of conservatives? My lot in life was created by me. My mistakes were my mistakes. I'm not taking ANY public assistance from the government, even though I probably qualify for it. I'm not going to make anyone else pay for my bad judgment - even if I was only 19 at the time and didn't know jack. I see you do not want to answer my questions. Let me succinct. How is it that liberals have accomplished what we have when we lack motivation? May I suggest that your opinion of what liberals are is mistaken? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 21, 2010 18:46:19 GMT -8
I relish the fact that I was able to raise my family on just my income and some of that was on mid grade Navy enlisted pay. You're a real success story, but lots of "self-made" people had inheritances that helped them "make" themselves. If you don't like seeing people get money without working for it, that's the same as welfare. I see nothing wrong with a person who makes his money being able to say where it will be put to work. There is nothing more damaging to a person's life work than to have it destroyed by being taxed away and wasted by government after it has already been taxed when it was first earned. A well informed person who is willing to do the work to find how to control his fortune will do just that and avoid the taxes. To give your money to your children just has to be more satisfying than to have it taken in taxes and wasted in some worthless project or program like "The Stimulus" or The Dept of Education. |
|
) But have you ever heard any Democratic officeholder ever speak out in public in favor of limited government? Don't they always speak in favor of what the government can do for people? 
Now that would fit the straw man world you concoct. ;D