Or, we could question every single user of the word "rich" exactly what he means. Net worth or income? How much?I remember when rich and millionaire both meant a million in net assets. I don't care what you think of Limbaugh, he nailed the new meaning. Rich is a buck a year more than what you make!
I like that he said it. I would prefer consumption taxes though. It seems to me, we will need consumption tax in a few decades, so we might as well start figuring it out. Otherwise, at some point, taxing labor, and all the other disincentives to hire a human, will make robots the clear winners. Then, it's all down hill.
Stu, rent out your place.
Joe, you do realize that this is just a slow variant of the way the communists used to take over countries? They would make everyone so sick of the process of forming a new government that they would eventually be a majority of those left fighting over the new constitution and then they would pass a rigged system putting them in control of a new socialist autocracy. I am the sort that says we blow up the iceberg just to make a statement. Of course, that's why my NSA file likely says to nuke my house from orbit at the first sign of trouble. Gotta go check out the secession thread, sounds like fun...
On the one hand, it's interesting you guys have advanced my knowledge on this old argument, but on the other, I am not sure it matters. I have always believed that we under value the damage of stolen time. A life being made up of minutes, if you steal my minutes, you are stealing my life. Less tragic that you stole a few hours than you had ended my life, but only somewhat more tragic than the math would say rather than dramatically more tragic. In my world, the idiots that pulled the GWB stunt ought to be punished like kidnappers. Taxes are still collected by threat of force, and liberals still deny it. Libertarians make too much of it. Who cares? Taxes must be collected, and little laws are still needed. We should concentrate more on how those little laws and regulations are being made and on how many they have come up with.
There are winners and losers when hosting an Olympics. If the winners in your area can get away with it, they will spend your money to make it happen.
It is really sad that public discourse is so polluted these days. Unfortunately, sometimes the goal of some people is just to make the noise, not to get any results. You then get a an ugly synergy with the current culture of journalism which has at its core a corrupt set of standards which seem designed to ensure the truth is consistently obfuscated.
Rachel, part of your problem is that to actually understand an ideology, you have to try to understand it, not just its weakest proponents. I could easily point out that SoCons are seemingly more concerned with appearances than results. They love to get all righteous about abortion, for example, but very few do anything that will make an actual difference. However, that doesn't help me really understand SoCons or their beliefs, only let's me feel superior. Certainly, I am correct about some of you, so it's a defensible position. OTOH, If I want to learn something, and get somewhere, I have to appreciate a desire for more moral correctness and the benefits it brings. I may disagree that a law, or even support for a law, will have positive results, but I still see the desired result as positive. That helps move the ball forward. I believe that laws that go beyond what is well agreed upon and enforceable are generally counterproductive. This seems to be the big break between S and L. SoCons believe that laws will generally be followed, while Libertarians believe that living by example and influence without compulsion are better.
Add to that, we need to end the nonsense, likely even against the opposition, where you say someone is against X because he voted against a bill for X, Y, and Z.
MWM, point taken, but the point is that you have to at least point to something concrete before you attack a fellow republican. None of this nonsense where you just say that the other guy isn't really conservative or wants to do whatever unless it's in their voting record or on their platform. No gotchas, no made ups, no stretches.
Chris, I think your ER friend's point on letting people die needs qualification. I suspect he is talking about the the old and dying getting procedures that may keep them alive in a miserable state, often unconscious, for a very short time when the doctors themselves would likely not choose those procedures for themselves or their loved ones. Medicare actually does cover the costs for most of that nonsense. If people were spending their own money, many of them would choose to leave the money to their relatives and pay only to be kept comfortable or to make an important date. Instead, under threat or due to greed or both, the doctors recommend and perform the procedures.
Do those countries have half their political leaders playing the victim game, identity politics, etc. I wonder what happens to a welfare taker who abuses the system in those countries. How is the malpractice game played there? How much of their savings relies on the price fixing of US medical products? Lastly, homogenous populations can save lots of health money, shall we re segregate?
Do you really think that divorce law changes changed the stigma of divorce rather the other way round? It seems to me that the sexual revolution, feminism, birth control, etc. Changed attitudes and forced the legal changes. I am, as always, open to ideas on saving marriages that can be saved, but repealing NFD outright is a bad idea, and pursuing that goal is an even worse idea for other conservative causes.
If we are going to use the poor as our sample, what year are going to go with? Or we going to use a particular state? My concern is separating out changes in welfare, technology, and other causes from the apparent correlation. Also, the expectations of the state are not what I think is the most important here. It's societal expectations, IMO. Changing the law means moving the majority opinion anyway. If that majority thinks your goal is reversing NFD, I don't think it's going ver far
Lucy, wasn't the value to being able to say you were married lost when divorce lost its stigma? I suspect nowadays, the stigma would be on the spouse clinging to a piece of paper. How would pre-NFD mixed with post feminism and post sexual revolution get the best of all worlds? Wouldn't we end up with mostly the bad bits of the mix rather than the good?
Joe, Mark, Tom, we have arrived at why we have the rules we have. Certainly, marriage should mean something. However, the state is very limited in its ability to referee. Realistically, there are still financial and other penalties to divorce. The biggest penalty used to be culturally enforced, but no longer is. There is presently a penalty for shacking up with kids, but that may fade as well. I believe the low hanging fruit here is to eliminate incentives to single parenthood and disincentives to marriage. Getting creative on disincentives to divorce with school age children might be useful, but it's not like no one has tried. It's really, really hard to solve these problems.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In