That doesn’t make any sense.
Thanks. That figure sounded ridiculous to me too but I didn’t have the knowledge to challenge it.
Some people believe taxes should go to program X, some to program Y, and often they disagree where their money is going. Therefore private institutions you can voluntarily donate to should replace most government programs. I am not silly enough to believe taxation can ever be eliminated, so I would settle for minimization rather than null. The other extreme is to have a Catholic government. If property should be utilized for the common good, so should rights like freedom of speech. Some people think it is okay to corrupt kids with trashy media but suddenly they become all moral when someone owns something they don’t. If they want to separate morals from justice then why go only halfway?
Right, but then you can’t use language like “confiscating what belongs to someone else.” If you grant that taxation is in principle legitimate, then you have given up the right to use that rhetoric. Period.
Well, I agree that separating morals from justice is silly and wicked, and I’d further say that most of the people who say that’s what they want don’t really mean it, just as the people who say that taxation is theft don’t really seem to mean it.
) is that, as I said above, both American “liberals” and American “conservatives” draw on the classic liberal heritage (Locke, etc.), but they do so in different ways and balance that heritage with different considerations. “Conservatives” are basically liberals with some conservative elements; “liberals” are liberals with some socialist elements. True conservatives are rare and true socialists, if anything, even rarer. Libertarians take the liberal emphasis on individual liberty to what they see as its logical extreme. Most folks fall in between these “pure” ideological points and are more concerned with pragmatic questions.I assumed that someone totaled up the entire cost of medical services provided to individuals. And medicare is disproportionately held by the elderly, whose medical costs are much higher than the population across all age brackets. A doctor told me that people spend something like 80% of their entire lifetimes medical care in either the last 2 years or last 2 months of their life (I forget which and the 80% might be off a bit but close).
Why would said people agree to do something that is going to cost them money rather than make them money? Who do you think controls the government, people other than rich poeple?
As a conservative I don’t see poor people as deserving of poverty nor do I see rich people deserving of their riches, per se. I do see that many, if not most poor people work very hard and long hours for very little because they do manual labor, which pays very little. CEOs, otoh, do jobs that require education and an A game personality. Many poor people live in poverty stricken areas from birth on up and never find their way out. Most rich people came up with a certain amount of privilege and so had an easier path to follow. These kinds of inequalities cannot be changed by giving hand outs to the poor or by taxing the rich to the point that they must hide their assets or have nothing. We punish both groups of people under our current system and then pit them against one another. And, as we all know, the middle class is shrinking year by year. This situation is the product of bad government–which must be changed.
I have a question I’ve been pondering, which is something I don’t really understand about conservatives. For the record, I am very pro-life and consider myself generally socially conservative, but economically I am much more liberal.
I’ve often heard that liberals and conservatives have different views of human nature. Liberals tend to believe people are basically good, whereas conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, or maybe a more realistic view, depending on your point of view. If they are religious, they tend to believe in original sin, and that is reflected in their political views.
When it comes to addressing poverty, liberals tend to favor government programs like welfare, whereas conservatives think the poor should rely on their families or private charities. Conservatives will say that people should give to charity voluntarily and not be forced through taxation.
But here’s what I don’t understand. If you’re a conservative, you have a darker view of human nature and don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good. So WHY do conservatives think that people will voluntarily give enough of their money to charity to help the poor??Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be so generous that government programs like welfare and Medicaid would be unnecessary. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that people simply don’t give enough. If people aren’t “forced” to give through taxation, the poor won’t get the help they need. This idea that the poor should rely on charity seems like pie-in-the-sky idealism, which is what conservatives often accuse liberals of.
Though the more cynical part of me sometimes thinks that conservatives simply don’t care much about the poor, and if people don’t give enough to charity – well, too bad.
And yes, I’m aware of the research that shows that conservatives give more than liberals to charity on average. I think that’s good, because it shows they practice what they preach. But even if individual conservatives give to charity, that doesn’t change the reality that most people simply don’t give enough.
And even though I believe we need government programs to help the poor, I still give money to charity. I’ve never thought that I don’t need to give money to charity because government programs exist. The poor need all the help they can get. Government AND charity should play a role.
Anyway – any thoughts on why conservatives have this view? It seems out of synch with their views on human nature.
Have nothing? That doesn’t make any sense. Not have all the luxuries and status symbols they have come to think necessary, perhaps. But I’m afraid I’m just not that impressed by the claims that “progressive” taxation is imposing real hardship on rich people.
I don’t know any liberals who think this way, and I know a lot of liberals.
I know some conservatives who think this way, but not the more thoughtful ones. The more common position, as I’m sure you know, is that many/most poor people want to work and that the best way to help them is to give wealthy investors opportunities and incentives to create jobs.
Yes, I think you’re right, and I apologize for contributing to this to some extent on this forum. I continue to believe that “conservatives” are reworking Christian doctrine on economic matters just as “liberals” are doing on sexual matters, but I have insisted on this forum that we need to take liberals seriously on sexual matters and not caricature them, and I apologize for doing the same thing on economic matters.
I guess I’m puzzled by why you have a problem with this. If you want a safety net for the most extreme cases, then wouldn’t you want folks who do have some resources to depend on those? This is a very personal question for me, because that’s basically my family’s situation at the moment–I was laid off my previous job (my institution had a financial crunch and I was the generalist in the department) and am trying to survive on adjuncting, with help from family. We make just enough that we don’t qualify for most benefits. So I appreciate that you think my situation is “ridiculous,” but if you want a fairly basic safety net then surely people like me are the ones who can (with some difficulty) do without.
Is that really why small businesses fail?
Your comments are, as usual, thoughtful and reasonable. Thanks!
Not a hardship but it necessitates the need for near deception. Wouldn’t it be better to simply tax at a rate fair to everyone so the rich don’t hide part of their assets? Sorry for the confusion.
Not all programs are bad, of course. But, there are too many who know how to “work” the system. I’ve seen people who have done this all their lives. It just shouldn’t work that way.
A bit extreme, perhaps, but they do tend to have an elitist attiude towards those of us in the lower middle classes who can’t see why they shouldn’t be telling us what to do with our lives and how we should think. I find most quite condescending and annoying.
Yes, that’s how I see it too.
Conservatives are definitely saddled with the “health and wealth gospel” sort of folks. Catholic conservatives don’t have that attitude–at least none that I know.
I didn’t make myself clear–my bad. I meant just the opposite. No one should have to lose everything in order to get a bit of help to tide them over or when it’s needed. This is what safety nets were supposed to do. :yup: I pray your situation gets better soon. We went through a long time when my dh could get only short term contract work. We nearly lost our house and went deeply into debt. So, I understand something of what you are going through.
Yes, quite a few. Ask those, like my dh who tried to start one. The government doesn’t make it easy, that’s for sure.
Thank you. As are yours. :tiphat:
I spoke to this idea earlier. If government was all about working together for you guys, you wouldn’t need the government. If everyone was willing to work together on all these programs, they would all be accomplished by voluntary non profits. You have to understand why I see your statement above to be so absurd. The government especially the federal government is not the only way to feed poor people nor is it even close to the most efficient way. The only reason to choose to use the federal government to achieve these goals is because you need the biggest stick you can possibly find to beat people who don’t agree into helping out. If you don’t see that, your lying to yourself.