Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[vern_humphrey]

Don’t make the mistake of thinking teachers are motivated by money. If we were, we’d be doing something else.

Your argument is flawed. I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who ought to be teaching but don’t because they can’t afford the pay cut, but it’s completely false to suggest that teachers are jumping to private schools solely because of money.

Peace,
Dante

You’re arguing from the real world and experience. He’s arguing from imagination.

You can’t win.

 

[estesbob]

I take offense at this. I have been teaching for 7 years, and every single minute of it was in private schools – some posher than others – in two different states.

You might be surprised to know this, but my salary has been lower than the state average in both states every single year of my career – by several thousand dollars. Both of those states’ averages below the national median in 2004, too. When I finish my masters degree, I’ll probably be around the state average for a first year teacher. And yet, I have no intention of ever working in a public school, because I get to teach here.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking teachers are motivated by money. If we were, we’d be doing something else.

Your argument is flawed. I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who ought to be teaching but don’t because they can’t afford the pay cut, but it’s completely false to suggest that teachers are jumping to private schools solely because of money.

Peace,
Dante

My Mother and Brother have combined teaching expericne of over 80 years. i agree that many Teachers are hard working and dedicated. my problem with the profession is they sold their soul to the NEA-an organization that stands in direct opposition to just about everything the Catholic churhc stands for. Both my Mother and Brother refused to join although both were forced to pay dues to them.

 

[SoCalRC]

He lost me when he said the poorest working Americans were the most highly taxed.

It is very simple, assuming you can handle math at the 3rd grade level. We are talking about percentage of income, not total dollars.

Think of it this way, for '07 I will pay, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars in Federal Income tax. That is, indisputably, a significant amount of money. Most people take out morgages and work 30 years to pay off that kind of money. But, what portion of my total income does that represent? In other words, if we divvy up the 100% of my work year, what percentage goes to ‘me and mine’, and what percentage goes to society?

Calculated that way, my tax rate as a percentage of income is among the lowest. And I actually pay more than most tax payers in my income bracket. For example, last year I bought another vintage GA plane, but did not take advantage of the “yacht loophole” here in CA to avoid paying our 8+% state sales tax.

There are three big reasons that I pay a lower total tax rate than most the people who work for me. First, unlike the vast majority of Americans, I do not live paycheck to paycheck, so a significant chunk of my income comes from investment, which is taxed at a significantly lower rate. Working income, particularly the first 100K or so, is among the highest taxed.

Second, again because I don’t live paycheck to paycheck, the bulk of my income is not subject to consumption side taxation. State sales taxes, license fees, fuel taxes, whatever. This one does not make sense at first glance. I buy some very expensive things, so it would seem reasonable to assume I’d pay high consumption taxes as well, but…

Third, the system is rigged in my favor. As I mentioned, in CA, the average smuck may pay sales tax on his car, but the rich and famous generally don’t pay it on their yachts and airplanes. And this is just one of a countless set of loopholes and exceptions.

The reason that the working poor pay the most are exactly the opposite. Virtually every dime that they make is hit with payroll taxes and consumption taxes, they generally have higher out of pocket expenses (ex. I get great health care coverage from a fictional person, primarily controlled by me), and don’t get far enough ahead to get the perks. By the middle class, you are paying income tax, but you are also probably getting things like the morgage interest tax credit, which is a large perk for beginning to accumulate generational wealth.

There is nothing particularly difficult about this. It isn’t even controversial, provided one go beyond a squawking head level of understanding. Both conservative and progressive think tanks come up with pretty much the same numbers as the GAO.

And, of course, all of this avoids the real issue. The concept of correlating wealth and earning power to one’s value to society is distinctly un-Christian and un-Catholic. We are called to join the poor in spirit. Religious priesthood requires a vow of poverty.

All the normal straw men appeared - ‘you want the government to do it!’, ‘I can’t add…’ But when all the wailing and rendering of clothes subsides, we still have an ideology that is distinctly at odds with the teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.

My question was, and remains, is this distinctly non-Christian ideology actually believed, or is it just and rationalization for one’s own conduct? In other words, does Vern really believe that the difference between our socio economic positions truly mean that I am harder working and more deserving? Is my value and importance to society truly so high that our system should be primarily structured for my benefit? If the answer is no, then we have to take a hard look at the word “Hypocrisy”, which is, of course, the original subject…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Think of it this way, for '07 I will pay, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars in Federal Income tax. That is, indisputably, a significant amount of money. Most people take out morgages and work 30 years to pay off that kind of money. But, what portion of my total income does that represent? In other words, if we divvy up the 100% of my work year, what percentage goes to ‘me and mine’, and what percentage goes to society?

'Fess up – you’re really George Soros, aren’t you?

You didn’t pick up on an earlier post – while the poor may pay, they also get. Most working poor people collect more back in the EITC and other programs than they pay in.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Right! But you assume that conservatives stop responding because they have no argument. Why do you assume that others aren’t as incredibly brilliant as you are and don’t know when to “just drop it?”

Well, in most cases, as you can see, sometimes the “conservative” will commit the sin of calumny, i.e., accuse me of “hating Republicans.” I never said that I hate Republican people (and if I have ever seemed to have done so, I repudiate such statements), I hate the core of Republican ideology, namely the love of money, but that doesn’t stop the intellectually dishonest from lying.

 

[estesbob]

Well, in most cases, as you can see, sometimes the “conservative” will commit the sin of calumny, i.e., accuse me of “hating Republicans.” I never said that I hate Republican people (and if I have ever seemed to have done so, I repudiate such statements), I hate the core of Republican ideology, namely the love of money, but that doesn’t stop the intellectually dishonest from lying.

As opposed to the Liberal philosophy of loving other peoples money and supporting killing of other peoles children.

My stereotype is cooler than yours!

 

[rlg94086]

All the normal straw men appeared - ‘you want the government to do it!’, ‘I can’t add…’ But when all the wailing and rendering of clothes subsides, we still have an ideology that is distinctly at odds with the teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.

My question was, and remains, is this distinctly non-Christian ideology actually believed, or is it just and rationalization for one’s own conduct? In other words, does Vern really believe that the difference between our socio economic positions truly mean that I am harder working and more deserving? Is my value and importance to society truly so high that our system should be primarily structured for my benefit? If the answer is no, then we have to take a hard look at the word “Hypocrisy”, which is, of course, the original subject…

How so? Again, please tell me where Jesus taught that we should lobby Caeser to increase taxes and create social programs? There is nothing about a call to charity that is “at odds with the teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.”

You may need to be the one to “take a hard look at the word ‘Hypocrisy.’” …right before you make another post complaining about the plight of the poor due to the system…and then buy another vintage airplane. I must have missed the part where Jesus told the rich man to buy more stuff and create a governmental system to take care of the poor. Hypocrisy indeed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, in most cases, as you can see, sometimes the “conservative” will commit the sin of calumny, i.e., accuse me of “hating Republicans.” I never said that I hate Republican people (and if I have ever seemed to have done so, I repudiate such statements), I hate the core of Republican ideology, namely the love of money, but that doesn’t stop the intellectually dishonest from lying.

Were you looking in the mirror when you said that?

Talk about a hate-filled post!

 

[SoCalRC]

'Fess up – you’re really George Soros, aren’t you?

Ah, I forgot, you are only supposed to worship me if I spoon feed the mantra you are accustomed to. Since your ideologiy is detached from objective reality, it is sometimes hard to keep up!

You didn’t pick up on an earlier post – while the poor may pay, they also get. Most working poor people collect more back in the EITC and other programs than they pay in.

Because it is not true. Both in absolute terms and in percentages of income, they are at the wrong end of the receiving end as well. One need only look at our national and state budgets.

Corporate welfare alone outstrips public health and housing spending by several orders of magnitude. And it happens at all levels of government. Rather it is $16,000,000,000 in tax breaks to oil companies while they reap in record profits or sweatheart deals to big retailers by municipalities (keep in mind when you go into a large retailer, that not only did some of you tax money go towards getting them there, the sales tax you are paying while spending money there might even be theirs to keep), the amounts are huge while our health and housing expenditures for the poor are, in proportional terms, quite small. A good way to get perspective is to look at our $2.4B weekly spending in Iraq and relate that to our broader public spending.

More importantly, even the funds we do expend on the poor are not, entirely, for their benefit alone. Look at one of the largest, if not the largest, employers in the nation - Walmart. A large portion of that workforce taps public programs for food, housing, and healthcare. So, in a very measurable way, we are, yet again, subsidizing that business entity.

This, like everything from tax subsidies to laws that help them shelter funds and assets abroad, seems in keeping with your ideology. We are talking about 5 or so of the 25 wealthiest people in the nation, the deserving ‘haves’, who you, yourself would be if you worked harder and improved yourself. Since their wealth is a testament to their immense value, it follows that we, as a society, must dote on them lest the scraps stop falling from their table…

Like I said, I find it complete garbage. I’ve seen zero correlation between wealth, earning power, and true value as a human person. But I accept Roman Catholicism, which teaches a much different valuation scale than the one you proport to believe. My question remains, do you really believe what you’ve spouted? Is my wealth truly a symbol of superior personal virtue and greater wealth to society? Or is it just an excuse for rejecting Judean/Christain values?

Clearly, there is a lot of hypocrisy involved. Look at the folks spouting about government handouts. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. What if one claims to detest free loaders, but then supports politicians who increase spending, especially corporate welfare, to historical highs (our deficit is about to be revised up to about $500,000,000,000 since revenue is tanking with the economy)? We’ve just opened up hundreds of billions in bailout money to irresponsible institutions, from the same folks claiming they are ideologically opposed to helping individual Americans caught up in the same financial disaster - even though some of those individuals where, themselves, victims of fraud. Isn’t it a teeny bit hypocritical to cling to empty talking points like “fiscal responsibility”, “free loading”, and “personal responsibility”?

Even ‘values’ arguments seem just as empty. Look at the lawsuit Walmart just dropped. One little detail that can get overlooked is that, while facing financial ruin, the husband divorced the disabled wife to make her eligible for some additional public aid. So, we live in a country where people get divorced to get care for the weakest among us - principally because some hypocritical political hacks wanted to posture and claim that regulatory changes were a reflection of their superior “family values”…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ah, I forgot, you are only supposed to worship me if I spoon feed the mantra you are accustomed to. Since your ideologiy is detached from objective reality, it is sometimes hard to keep up!

Ah, that old spite.

Because it is not true. Both in absolute terms and in percentages of income, they are at the wrong end of the receiving end as well. One need only look at our national and state budgets.

Are you going to come out with that old chestnut that the rich get back more than they pay in?

Corporate welfare alone outstrips public health and housing spending by several orders of magnitude. And it happens at all levels of government. Rather it is $16,000,000,000 in tax breaks to oil companies while they reap in record profits or sweatheart deals to big retailers by municipalities (keep in mind when you go into a large retailer, that not only did some of you tax money go towards getting them there, the sales tax you are paying while spending money there might even be theirs to keep), the amounts are huge while our health and housing expenditures for the poor are, in proportional terms, quite small. A good way to get perspective is to look at our $2.4B weekly spending in Iraq and relate that to our broader public spending.

I see – by not killing the goose that lays the golden egg, we do wrong?

More importantly, even the funds we do expend on the poor are not, entirely, for their benefit alone.

You bet they aren’t!! They’re for the benefit of politicians and bureaucrats.

If we wanted to help the poor, we’d educate them, encourage businesses (wid’ dat ol’ debbil, tax incentives) to employ them, and they’d become self-sufficient and ultimately contributers, helping the rest of us care for those who cannot care for themselves.

Did you pick up on the report that not only do we have a 30% high school dropout rate, but in many big cities the dropout rate exceeds 50%.

Look at one of the largest, if not the largest, employers in the nation - Walmart. A large portion of that workforce taps public programs for food, housing, and healthcare. So, in a very measurable way, we are, yet again, subsidizing that business entity.

Well, dang Wal-Mart, anyway – they should just fire all those people and leave them totally dependent on welfare.

This, like everything from tax subsidies to laws that help them shelter funds and assets abroad, seems in keeping with your ideology. We are talking about 5 or so of the 25 wealthiest people in the nation, the deserving ‘haves’, who you, yourself would be if you worked harder and improved yourself. Since their wealth is a testament to their immense value, it follows that we, as a society, must dote on them lest the scraps stop falling from their table…

As opposed to hating everyone else who makes more than we do?

Like I said, I find it complete garbage. I’ve seen zero correlation between wealth, earning power, and true value as a human person.

Tell me how you correlate non-quantifiable data?

But I accept Roman Catholicism, which teaches a much different valuation scale than the one you proport to believe. My question remains, do you really believe what you’ve spouted? Is my wealth truly a symbol of superior personal virtue and greater wealth to society? Or is it just an excuse for rejecting Judean/Christain values?

And my question is, how does this paragraph jibe with the one above?

Clearly, there is a lot of hypocrisy involved. Look at the folks spouting about government handouts. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. What if one claims to detest free loaders, but then supports politicians who increase spending, especially corporate welfare, to historical highs (our deficit is about to be revised up to about $500,000,000,000 since revenue is tanking with the economy)? We’ve just opened up hundreds of billions in bailout money to irresponsible institutions, from the same folks claiming they are ideologically opposed to helping individual Americans caught up in the same financial disaster - even though some of those individuals where, themselves, victims of fraud. Isn’t it a teeny bit hypocritical to cling to empty talking points like “fiscal responsibility”, “free loading”, and “personal responsibility”?

Isn’t it a teeny bit hypocritical to boast about how much you make (and how much taxes you pay) and post something like that?

Even ‘values’ arguments seem just as empty. Look at the lawsuit Walmart just dropped. One little detail that can get overlooked is that, while facing financial ruin, the husband divorced the disabled wife to make her eligible for some additional public aid. So, we live in a country where people get divorced to get care for the weakest among us - principally because some hypocritical political hacks wanted to posture and claim that regulatory changes were a reflection of their superior “family values”…

Can you name those “hypocritical political hacks” and list their party affiliation?

 

[BamaRider]

It is very simple, assuming you can handle math at the 3rd grade level. We are talking about percentage of income, not total dollars.

Think of it this way, for '07 I will pay, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars in Federal Income tax. That is, indisputably, a significant amount of money. Most people take out morgages and work 30 years to pay off that kind of money. But, what portion of my total income does that represent? In other words, if we divvy up the 100% of my work year, what percentage goes to ‘me and mine’, and what percentage goes to society?

Calculated that way, my tax rate as a percentage of income is among the lowest. And I actually pay more than most tax payers in my income bracket. For example, last year I bought another vintage GA plane, but did not take advantage of the “yacht loophole” here in CA to avoid paying our 8+% state sales tax.

There are three big reasons that I pay a lower total tax rate than most the people who work for me. First, unlike the vast majority of Americans, I do not live paycheck to paycheck, so a significant chunk of my income comes from investment, which is taxed at a significantly lower rate. Working income, particularly the first 100K or so, is among the highest taxed.

Second, again because I don’t live paycheck to paycheck, the bulk of my income is not subject to consumption side taxation. State sales taxes, license fees, fuel taxes, whatever. This one does not make sense at first glance. I buy some very expensive things, so it would seem reasonable to assume I’d pay high consumption taxes as well, but…

Third, the system is rigged in my favor. As I mentioned, in CA, the average smuck may pay sales tax on his car, but the rich and famous generally don’t pay it on their yachts and airplanes. And this is just one of a countless set of loopholes and exceptions.

The reason that the working poor pay the most are exactly the opposite. Virtually every dime that they make is hit with payroll taxes and consumption taxes, they generally have higher out of pocket expenses (ex. I get great health care coverage from a fictional person, primarily controlled by me), and don’t get far enough ahead to get the perks. By the middle class, you are paying income tax, but you are also probably getting things like the morgage interest tax credit, which is a large perk for beginning to accumulate generational wealth.

There is nothing particularly difficult about this. It isn’t even controversial, provided one go beyond a squawking head level of understanding. Both conservative and progressive think tanks come up with pretty much the same numbers as the GAO.

And, of course, all of this avoids the real issue. The concept of correlating wealth and earning power to one’s value to society is distinctly un-Christian and un-Catholic. We are called to join the poor in spirit. Religious priesthood requires a vow of poverty.

All the normal straw men appeared - ‘you want the government to do it!’, ‘I can’t add…’ But when all the wailing and rendering of clothes subsides, we still have an ideology that is distinctly at odds with the teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.

My question was, and remains, is this distinctly non-Christian ideology actually believed, or is it just and rationalization for one’s own conduct? In other words, does Vern really believe that the difference between our socio economic positions truly mean that I am harder working and more deserving? Is my value and importance to society truly so high that our system should be primarily structured for my benefit? If the answer is no, then we have to take a hard look at the word “Hypocrisy”, which is, of course, the original subject…

So in all that you’re tryin to say my taxes are too high, and yours are too low? Hahahahaha! If it makes ya feel better send me a check!!

 

[ribozyme]

So in all that you’re tryin to say my taxes are too high, and yours are too low? Hahahahaha! If it makes ya feel better send me a check!!

So the world revolves around you? Why should anyone give you a check when you a living a blessed life? Don’t you realize that there are many people who are unfortunate?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So the world revolves around you? Why should anyone give you a check when you a living a blessed life? Don’t you realize that there are many people who are unfortunate?

And how much taxes do you pay to help those unfortunate people?

 

[estesbob]

So the world revolves around you? Why should anyone give you a check when you a living a blessed life? Don’t you realize that there are many people who are unfortunate?

People you have turned you back on because, as you put it:
“Charity does not make me feel any better”

 

[ribozyme]

People you have turned you back on because, as you put it:
“Charity does not make me feel any better”

I am being honest… charity makes me feel insignificant and weak. It reminds me that I do not have the means to make a significant difference.

'Fess up – you’re really George Soros, aren’t you?

I admire George Soros because he seems to be one of the few wealthy people who are willing to devote a significant fraction of their fortunate to help the vulnerable people in the world whether they are oppressed by a corrupt regime or mired in poverty. Soros is known for the former instead of the latter. Soros’ wealth does not inspire envy within me; it only makes me acknowledge my own futility.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am being honest… charity makes me feel insignificant and weak. It reminds me that I do not have the means to make a significant difference.

Have you considered getting a job and working?

 

[ribozyme]

Have you considered getting a job and working?

Will I have the means to imitate the charity of George Soros and others like him?

 

[Ridgerunner]

This, like everything from tax subsidies to laws that help them shelter funds and assets abroad, seems in keeping with your ideology. We are talking about 5 or so of the 25 wealthiest people in the nation, the deserving ‘haves’, who you, yourself would be if you worked harder and improved yourself. Since their wealth is a testament to their immense value, it follows that we, as a society, must dote on them lest the scraps stop falling from their table…Surely a typing error here. Surely you’re not talking about five people.

Is my wealth truly a symbol of superior personal virtue and greater wealth to society? Or is it just an excuse for rejecting Judean/Christain values?

Clearly, there is a lot of hypocrisy involved. Look at the folks spouting about government handouts. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. What if one claims to detest free loaders, but then supports politicians who increase spending, especially corporate welfare, to historical highs (our deficit is about to be revised up to about $500,000,000,000 since revenue is tanking with the economy)? We’ve just opened up hundreds of billions in bailout money to irresponsible institutions, from the same folks claiming they are ideologically opposed to helping individual Americans caught up in the same financial disaster - even though some of those individuals where, themselves, victims of fraud. Isn’t it a teeny bit hypocritical to cling to empty talking points like “fiscal responsibility”, “free loading”, and “personal responsibility”?

I don’t find it all that attractive to be told by some rich person (which you constantly remind us that you are) that we in the middle class (which most of us are) are such dummies because we don’t want to vote for those who support abortion and want to increase our taxes to give the money to other middle class people and a different set of corporate lobbyists. When have your abortion-loving candidates risen eloquent over increasing SSI, the support of the least fortunate of all? Never. No, it’s about buying middle class votes with handouts paid for by middle class taxes.

As odd as it may seem to all of the guilt-ridden rich who seem to want to assuage their consciences by giving away the hard-earned dollars of those who aren’t rich, most middle class folks (and I include Vern and Estesbob in that by mere suspicion. They can affirm or deny.) who are fiscal conservatives don’t really care how much the rich make. The “big rich” are the most prominent among those who get the vapors over it. If they want to clear their consciences, they can give their money away, including their fabulous earnings, drive five year old Fords and live among the postal carriers and factory workers and small proprietors they disdain so much for voting for fiscal conservatism. Until they do, they have nothing to say to me.

I don’t think there’s a middle class person in here who wouldn’t gladly pay more tax to help the truly needy. Ask them if you don’t believe me. It’s the transfer to those who are living off the system unproductively that they resent. I don’t know what crowd you run with, but I suspect most middle class working people know at least five people who don’t work but could, or have become adept at milking the system. I talked to a lawyer yesterday who told me he quit doing social security disability cases because he knew most of his clients could work, and his conscience wouldn’t let him continue doing it.

And if those who don’t like it vote for someone who feeds special interests (and both parties do) but at least intends to retard the growth of middle class entitlements, and doesn’t promise to tax them to pay for abortions, they can’t be blamed for it. They don’t have ideal choices. I do note in passing that only one presidential candidate has not sneaked a single pork barrel “earmark” into the budget. The others have. One holds the record. From that standpoint, if no other, the least undesirable choice among the candidates is the one who doesn’t do earmarks.

Give your money away, pare your family income down to a fairly nice $100,000, live that way for five years and then come talk to us about how much more tax you want to pay. Perhaps we’ll listen then.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t find it all that attractive to be told by some rich person (which you constantly remind us that you are) that we in the middle class (which most of us are) are such dummies because we don’t want to vote for those who support abortion and want to increase our taxes to give the money to other middle class people and a different set of corporate lobbyists. When have your abortion-loving candidates risen eloquent over increasing SSI, the support of the least fortunate of all? Never. No, it’s about buying middle class votes with handouts paid for by middle class taxes.

As odd as it may seem to all of the guilt-ridden rich who seem to want to assuage their consciences by giving away the hard-earned dollars of those who aren’t rich, most middle class folks (and I include Vern and Estesbob in that by mere suspicion. They can affirm or deny.) who are fiscal conservatives don’t really care how much the rich make. The “big rich” are the most prominent among those who get the vapors over it. If they want to clear their consciences, they can give their money away, including their fabulous earnings, drive five year old Fords and live among the postal carriers and factory workers and small proprietors they disdain so much for voting for fiscal conservatism. Until they do, they have nothing to say to me.

I don’t think there’s a middle class person in here who wouldn’t gladly pay more tax to help the truly needy. Ask them if you don’t believe me. It’s the transfer to those who are living off the system unproductively that they resent. I don’t know what crowd you run with, but I suspect most middle class working people know at least five people who don’t work but could, or have become adept at milking the system. I talked to a lawyer yesterday who told me he quit doing social security disability cases because he knew most of his clients could work, and his conscience wouldn’t let him continue doing it.

And if those who don’t like it vote for someone who feeds special interests (and both parties do) but at least intends to retard the growth of middle class entitlements, and doesn’t promise to tax them to pay for abortions, they can’t be blamed for it. They don’t have ideal choices. I do note in passing that only one presidential candidate has not sneaked a single pork barrel “earmark” into the budget. The others have. One holds the record. From that standpoint, if no other, the least undesirable choice among the candidates is the one who doesn’t do earmarks.

Give your money away, pare your family income down to a fairly nice $100,000, live that way for five years and then come talk to us about how much more tax you want to pay. Perhaps we’ll listen then.

Liberal white guilt has been devastating to the poor and middle class in this country.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Will I have the means to imitate the charity of George Soros and others like him?

If you work hard enough.