Raising taxes on the rich

  • Thread starter Thread starter valentino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, Davidmlamb,

This is very complex - and I will have to devote more time and attention to an appropriate answer.

A few things, however, I can tell you without fear of contradiction:

Unrestraind capitalism is evil - just like the excess of any act. Socialism is evil by itself because government winds up taking the means of production, the goods and services are all directed by a central authority. Karl Marx had it right! Government must take all and make it look benevolent “To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.”

Unlike your presentation, the Magisterium is not endorsing socialism or the Democratic Party - this is what I was trying to say.

Actually, I am quit sure that the Magisterium does not endorse any economic system and has condemned the evils it has identified in each. - this must be carefully evaluated because all peoples must operate under an economic system.

I will return on this post of yours.

God bless
Well Tom I think I can agree with you here. To be clear I was not endorsing the Democratic party, I was endorsing the teachings of the Church on social economic justice issues. I was however condemning right wing conservatism, I believe it is a cancer in the body of Christ and has corrupted many souls. What you said about the Church condemning both Marxism and Capitalism (unregulated) is exactly what the Church say’s:

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204

A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

Peace,
David
 
Hi, Davidmlamb,

I am working my way through your suggested readings - and I must say in all candor, the Chruch’s teach have had to pass through the filter of your socialist lens
You can read the numerous encyclicals written by every pope since Leo XIII on the Vatican website and you can read them in the Catechism especially CCC 2402-2434 and CCC 1897-1912. In addition, you can read the gospels and what Jesus said to the man who kept the law yet lacked one thing in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
I must confess I had not read this section in the CCC and read your items and a few more… 🙂 Now, I have not gotten to the encyclicals - so, if you would kindly recommend the one you think best demonstrates the position you hold - I will get right to it. Thanks.

Concerning the CCC sections you have provided. At the very least, your stated position is really not as clearly or as forcefully made by the CCC as you have presented. Here is an extensive quote from these items in the CCC. I have taken the liberty to underline the significant items to your position.

“…and you can read them in the Catechism especially CCC 2402-2434 and CCC 1897-1912.”

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties.** Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family,** and so on.28

1925 The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.

1927 **It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. **The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

2429** Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor.** He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good

2431 The responsibility of the state. “Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. **On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”**217

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. **Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment. **

2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit.** It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.**

There is a lot here - but, no one in the Magisterium is waving the flag or Socialism in order to get every aspect of the economy - and human life itself ‘equal’. And, I think their glowing condemnation is something to consider.

God bless
 
The king announces that from now on there will be free health care, housing, clothing, food and jobs for everybody. To which a peasant responds: “If we’re given all that, why do we need jobs?”
 
How will taxing the rich in the United States raise the standard of living of the people of Niger?

Explain why Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world, if not THE poorest is not awash in electricity. Niger has one of the largest uranium mines in the world. And they do not get one watt of electricity from nuclear. Instead they have to bring in oil by rail and by truck for their diesel-electric power station. And … the LARGEST user of electricity in the entire country is … [are you ready for this?] … the air conditioner for the hangar that houses the dictator’s personal airplane … a Boeing 737 … why does the head of the poorest country on earth need his own personal 737.

If you export economic freedom to those third world countries and they will have plenty of energy.

Just think of Niger.

About the only country with the right idea is France that gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear. Although they just happen to use (mostly) reactor designs developed in the United States … see, we do share our energy.

In addition to uranium, Niger has coal. Yet they get not one kilowatt of electricity from burning coal. Actually, there IS ONE coal-fired electric plant, but it services the uranium mines and ONLY the uranium mines. [There are two uranium mines.]

AND Niger has 365 days per year of perfect sun. Yet they get not one kilowatt of electricity of electricity from solar power.

AND, now it looks like Niger has oil. Yet they get not one kilowatt of electricity from oil.

So, explain, PLEASE, how a country with virtually infinite energy resources can be the poorest country on the Earth!

Sorry for bringing up the situation of Niger.

But it drives me crazy when people criticize the United States and totally overlook the misery of the people of Niger which has HUGE amounts of energy available, but doesn’t use ANY of it.

They could have virtually free electricity. It ought to be a paradise to live in with fully airconditioned houses for everyone. Hydroponic greenhouses for growing every kind of speciality fruits and vegetables for the export market … everything already grows there and they do export tomatoes and other products. They could have electric railways and electric cars.

There is a river that flows through, the Fleuve Niger. They could have all electric tourism for their magnificent “W du Niger”. Watch the hippopotami in their natural environment.

But instead the people there are oppressed. The “presidents” get arrested and either shot or exiled. One of the wives of one of the former presidents had a MAGNIFICENT irrigated cattle ranch.

Pure corruption.

And it doesn’t have to be that way AT ALL.

They have infinite energy and infinite poverty at the same time.

They have so much money, but NONE of it reaches the people in any way.

In the United States, the people have the money.

In Niger, the dictator has the money. And clearly, someone is getting the money; but in Niger it isn’t the people.

So you tell me: how does taxing the rich in the United States abolish corruption in Niger? They have plenty of cheap energy to make electricity at minimal cost. But it’s government that destroys the people. It’s not the rich people in the private sector that do the damage. Government does the damage.
 
DavidmLamb:I agree.Unstrained capitalism is bad.But congress enacted laws against this back in the early 20th century.The monopolies caused all kinds of legistlation to be adopted and various other laws were enacted down through the years to contain Capitalism.their were laws which were meant to allow indendent companies to grow.Laws which would help competition and nnot stifle growth.When socialism beared its ugly head all sorts of problems began.Now the have hundred if not thousands different laws trying to accomplish the same ends and they are failures.the regulators we are told didn’t do there jobs.How many new laws and new beaurocrats do we need to ensure honesst practices?With every law that is passed subsequent laws are passed to enforce the previous law?Every gov.programs grows,and grows,and grows and neverr solves any problems.There is no end of new legistlation passed to try to correct some simple problem.By doing so we cause people total disruption in every area society.
 
Hi, Stevekochi,

I think you gave the wrong hyperlink from ucanews - this one is about the religious diversity of Tiwan and has a picture of the Trinity (with three identical figures).

God bless
We know that the tax rate system has benifited the rich making them able to gain such wealth.Is it there lobbying to republican members…
just read this news…the world is changing…ucanews.com/2011/07/08/more-temples-than-churches-in-taiwan/
 
Hi, Davidmlamb,

Just step back for the moment and look at what you have quoted… really …
2424 The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects.

A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206

2425 She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.
The DISORDERED DESIRE for any THING - not the Creator is WRONG. Actually, the very nature of the Seven Cardinal Sins (anger, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony) is simply a demonststrhe nation of a disordered desire applied to a specific human action. This same human action (justified anger, acquiring the necessities of life, being proud to be a Child of God, marital act within confines of marriage, (hmmm not sure about envy here! :D) and eating and drinking to sustain and promote life) can be well-ordered and a virtue.

The Church is directing well established principles at greed in the form of economic activity. Everything must be kept in balance or we lose sight of God. Now, we have looked at several economic systems - all can easily be seen to be disordered in some way. From my reading of it - there is NO SUCH THING as a well-ordered: communism, socialism or totalatarianism. These three are evil to their very core. Unrestrained Capitalism is evil. But, a Capitalist that is ordered and focused on the dignity of man, who does not have greed at his only motive - that is not condemned. Can it done? Yes. The defining issue is that no one can make socialism ‘right’ - but, you can earn a living, invest in items you believe will help spread the Word of God, give to the poor and actually be that light on the hill!

There is no virtue in government takine one’s money to do what you can do. We can not come up with private standing armies - but, we can all pay taxes for the national defense. We can however, donate, time, talent and resources to aid the poor, teach the ignorant, shelter the homeless, and any thing else you want to do to make Christ’s presence real to the world.

We will all have to answer for how we have used the resources of this world. I have every confidence that the ‘rich’ (and that includes you and me…) will have more to account for than the poor. And, yes, that means that the Bill Gates’ of this world will have still more to account for. But, taking their money away through higher and higher taxes (‘soak the rich’) does not go to the heart of the problem - and only feeds off of Marx’s ‘class warfare’ ideal.

God bless
 
… I believe in proper regulation in lieu of government spending programs.
I can agree with this, but the question is what is “proper” regulation. The current housing crisis came about in no small part due to over regulation, not under regulation.
 
You know, Copperblade, this is nothing but ‘class warfare’ rhetoric.
I don’t think so
And, if you can get your eyes off of your wallet for a moment, just take a look at which party is categorically promoting abrotions.
Are you seriously trying to say all I care about is money because I’m staying on topic? (Or at least relatively on topic.)
There simply are not enough ‘rich people’ to pay this off. Really. There are going to be serious cuts in social programs - and when it comes to social JUSTICE it is to give everyone what is owed to them. Mercy and charity are different virtues. There is NO MORE MONEY to give away. Are you going out taking out loan after loan to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless. Get serious. People do what they can - and they have real limits. Goverments have real limits, too - and we are just coming around to seeing this.
Yes, it’s quite a problem. I don’t know if we really disagree or not though. Like I might have mentioned, I’m in favor of regulation in lieu of government spending: privatize and regulate. I want to leverage the invisible hand, not replace it and not let it just run completely freely. But of course I’m assuming relatively good and appropriate regulation, which may be unrealistic. I guess I just don’t like “too big to fail” whether it’s the banks or it’s government. I’m willing to do my part, but not all of it, and not without cooperation and fixes for the future. I’m guessing most people feel that way.
 
So in other words there is just as much wealth in this country as there ever has been its just distributed differently.
I don’t think that’s what I was saying. If by wealth, you mean “value” I think we (and most of the world) has more and more all the time, and our lives get better. The stroller and car seat that I have for my child today is cheaper (inflation-adjusted of course) and better than what my parents had. I believe our cars are better relative to inflation-adjusted dollars, etc. And if you want a more obvious example, just go back a few hundred years. Not even the monarchs in feudal Europe (a true free capitalist system) had the luxury of a modern-day toilet–they just had more than their subjects.
 
What you are doing here is using words interchangeably without any regard for their meaning.

What you are doing, hopefully not deliberately, which is fraud, is to taking complicated expressions and deliberately mixing them.
Oh yes, I’m so totally guilty of fraud. :rolleyes:
There are different kinds of losses.
If an enterprise makes a profit, it does something with those profits. A profit is merely a positive difference between revenues and expenses. Usually what it does with the profits is 1) pay taxes; 2) reinvest what is left after taxes to improve the business; 3) pay a dividend to the owners … the people who put up the money to start the business in the first place. That dividend is income that those investors may use for living expenses [e.g., retirees, trust fund holders, pension funds, mutual funds which are managed by people insultingly described as “wall street fat cats”.]
There are very strict accounting rules of how you compute all the ways that money must be counted. Take a look at the rules describing depreciation, for example. Boring, I know, but better than mixing meanings to mislead people. Precision in definitions and word meanings is essential. So please be precise.
Some politico once told me that it’s “just a bunch of numbers” … but numbers are very precise.
If an enterprise has a loss, which is a negative difference between revenues and expenses, it must do one of two things: correct the problem or go out of business.
Ok, so apply that to before and after the banking crisis, and tell me that we didn’t privatize the profits, and socialize the losses.
Some people describe outer kinds of things as “losses”, such as air pollution. But are they really losses?
Whether you want to call them “losses” in accounting terms is irrelevant to the spirit of the discussion–it’s still something we all pay for one way or another.
Or are they the byproducts of the provision of goods and services. You may want an electric car, but air pollution rules require that the batteries be made somewhere else … the rules are too stringent to allow the batteries to be made in the United States. So the jobs are transferred from the United States to someplace else … South Korea or India, which is happy for the jobs.
The question is one of reasonable responsibility. Do you think it’s reasonable for my neighbor to keep me up all night with loud music? He should be free to play his music, but I should also be free not to have to hear it (or not to have to move in order not to hear it). Some of my neighbors used to burn trash in their yard every weekend. Is it ok according to you that my children have to breathe it?

I think this is exactly why the more densely populated areas of the country tend to be “left leaning” in our current political scale: they have to live in close quarters with others, and they’re much more aware of how individual actions affect others. With lots of space it’s easy to be free to do whatever you want because it doesn’t affect other people.
Do you want manhole covers? India. Some from the United States, but more and more from India. Do you have an old ship that has exceeded its service time; you put out bids to recycle the ship and the best bid is from somebody in Pakistan, which is happy for the jobs. Without those recycling jobs, there is no money for food.
Back to responsibility. Adding other countries into the mix just complicates any point you’re trying to make. Mexico is probably the best example, and it’s the reason why people are upset about immigration. We don’t have the ability to tell other countries what to do or how high their standards should be. We can do things like sign treaties, and make agreements at the highest levels, but it’s difficult and slow. We can’t just tell Mexico to just start enforcing better rule of law so they can get their economy on track and they aren’t fleeing to this country.

All of these kind of arguments boil down to game theory.
Or you may want electricity, but the emissions from a power plant exceed the environmental rules … so what do you do?
And you want electricity NOW.
Why do you “want electricity NOW” ? Do you feel entitled to have the electricity now? Is it because you’ve already built a dependency on it? If that’s what you’re saying, then yes… I agree we shouldn’t just suddenly stop producing power. We first need to institute ways that reduce power consumption. (Then maybe the pollution problem magically goes away anyway.)
What do you do?
When I go to Indonesia (which by the way seems much more of a laissez faire system to me), the power can go out in an area any time. What do they do? Nothing, they just accept it. The power goes out, you wait for it to come back on. I’ve been through power outages for days due to nearby hurricanes. What did I do? I waited.
Please describe very precisely by what means YOU will manufacture electricity.
Maybe I’m not following you. Why do I have to manufacture electricity again? Because if we try to discourage burning coal, we won’t have any electricity anymore? I wasn’t thinking of such drastic measures as shutting down coal plants tomorrow.

Let me turn this around so you can see the question I’m trying to answer: let’s say society doesn’t want the pollution from coal for whatever reason. Given your example of electricity, what incentives do the people producing electricity have to change their fuel source or institute other methods of reducing the pollution? How does the market handle this?
 
Oh yes, I’m so totally guilty of fraud. :rolleyes:

Ok, so apply that to before and after the banking crisis, and tell me that we didn’t privatize the profits, and socialize the losses.

Whether you want to call them “losses” in accounting terms is irrelevant to the spirit of the discussion–it’s still something we all pay for one way or another.

The question is one of reasonable responsibility. Do you think it’s reasonable for my neighbor to keep me up all night with loud music? He should be free to play his music, but I should also be free not to have to hear it (or not to have to move in order not to hear it). Some of my neighbors used to burn trash in their yard every weekend. Is it ok according to you that my children have to breathe it?

I think this is exactly why the more densely populated areas of the country tend to be “left leaning” in our current political scale: they have to live in close quarters with others, and they’re much more aware of how individual actions affect others. With lots of space it’s easy to be free to do whatever you want because it doesn’t affect other people.

Back to responsibility. Adding other countries into the mix just complicates any point you’re trying to make. Mexico is probably the best example, and it’s the reason why people are upset about immigration. We don’t have the ability to tell other countries what to do or how high their standards should be. We can do things like sign treaties, and make agreements at the highest levels, but it’s difficult and slow. We can’t just tell Mexico to just start enforcing better rule of law so they can get their economy on track and they aren’t fleeing to this country.

All of these kind of arguments boil down to game theory.

Why do you “want electricity NOW” ? Do you feel entitled to have the electricity now? Is it because you’ve already built a dependency on it? If that’s what you’re saying, then yes… I agree we shouldn’t just suddenly stop producing power. We first need to institute ways that reduce power consumption. (Then maybe the pollution problem magically goes away anyway.)

When I go to Indonesia (which by the way seems much more of a laissez faire system to me), the power can go out in an area any time. What do they do? Nothing, they just accept it. The power goes out, you wait for it to come back on. I’ve been through power outages for days due to nearby hurricanes. What did I do? I waited.

Maybe I’m not following you. Why do I have to manufacture electricity again? Because if we try to discourage burning coal, we won’t have any electricity anymore? I wasn’t thinking of such drastic measures as shutting down coal plants tomorrow.

Let me turn this around so you can see the question I’m trying to answer: let’s say society doesn’t want the pollution from coal for whatever reason. Given your example of electricity, what incentives do the people producing electricity have to change their fuel source or institute other methods of reducing the pollution? How does the market handle this?
“**Because if we try to discourage burning coal, we won’t have any electricity anymore? I wasn’t thinking of such drastic measures as shutting down coal plants tomorrow.”
**

Because this is exactly what we are doing. Shutting down coal-burning plants. NOW. It is taking place NOW. Today. AND, new EPA rules have been published that will shut down many non-electric-generation-related-boilers.

And the links to the actual news reports have been posted here on CAF.

Here is one; there are many more.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2664172/posts
 
I can agree with this, but the question is what is “proper” regulation. The current housing crisis came about in no small part due to over regulation, not under regulation.
Yep. It’s not easy. But I think the first step is to frame the problem. Maybe if people were focused on framing the problem this way, and really cared, we would be voting in different kinds of people instead of people that just line our wallets. I don’t really want to disparage anyone who votes for a benefit or tax cut for themselves, because I realize the psychology of that is really strong.

But I think it also means voting in people because they’re smart and have convinced you they really know what they’re doing. Just towing the line or following ideologies doesn’t seem to work toward the betterment of society. The devil’s in the details, right? There’s no ideology I know of that is correct 100% of the time.

So yeah, maybe what I’m saying is just outside the realm of reality: maybe the majority will never vote for anything except whatever benefits them the most directly.

Oh by the way, I think the housing crisis was also due to tax subsidies for buying a house, which incorrectly skewed the market demand for housing. I’ve got a few opinions about mortgages and the industry though…
 
Ok, so apply that to before and after the banking crisis, and tell me that we didn’t privatize the profits, and socialize the losses.
To some extent that’s true, but not entirely. The TARP “loans” to the solvent banks will be very profitable to the government, so that will be a “socialized” profit, if you will. The losses were borne by the stockholders of the banks that went under. So, in that instance, the losses were “privatized” and the gains were “socialized”. That actually happens a lot, though in less dramatic ways. I know a fellow who operates a protein-processing plant in a very wooded part of the country where there are sawmills. He wants to power his plant with byproducts of the sawmills. The state is telling him he has to install afterburners and scrubbers and all sorts of expensive things to his stacks. Presumably there is a public “gain” to that in the form of cleaner air, whatever. There again, it’s a private “loss” incurred for a public “gain”.

All taxes represent a private “loss” for a public “gain” when you get right down to it.
 
Yep. It’s not easy. But I think the first step is to frame the problem. Maybe if people were focused on framing the problem this way, and really cared, we would be voting in different kinds of people instead of people that just line our wallets. I don’t really want to disparage anyone who votes for a benefit or tax cut for themselves, because I realize the psychology of that is really strong.

But I think it also means voting in people because they’re smart and have convinced you they really know what they’re doing. Just towing the line or following ideologies doesn’t seem to work toward the betterment of society. The devil’s in the details, right? There’s no ideology I know of that is correct 100% of the time.

So yeah, maybe what I’m saying is just outside the realm of reality: maybe the majority will never vote for anything except whatever benefits them the most directly.
These issues are not new ones. The problem is that we have had very smart people working on it and after a hundred years they still have not got it right … and have made the situation worse and worse. Partly because of unintended tertiary effects that overpower the original problem. And partly because regulators can only come up with “one-size-fits-all” and we are not all the same size. And partly because regulators cannot come up with any kind of inadequate solution in any kind of timely manner. They take forever.

NONE of the problems or industries are defined by only one or two or three variables. There are hundreds of variables and they change by the hour. Very smart people, no matter how smart they are, cannot keep up with the dynamics of the various industries.

When there was a problem after Hurricane Katrina with localized shortages of gasoline owing to each locality having their own formula restrictions and regulations, then-President Bush issued an executive order doing away with the multiplicity of gasoline rules and the shortages disappeared the next day. That is the power of the market.

We proved that Government regulations fail whenever they are tried, when President Carter abolished the ICC and the CAB and railroad and airline service to the public bloomed.

Raising taxes on the rich is merely an evidence of envy. Liberals have their executive jets and attack corporations that have executive jets. John Kerry rides around in Theresa’s jet. Warren Buffet hated executive jets and then tried one and then bought Executive Jets!!

Liberals do not send their kinds of public schools. Liberals do not drive little electric cars.
 
Yep. It’s not easy. But I think the first step is to frame the problem. Maybe if people were focused on framing the problem this way, and really cared, we would be voting in different kinds of people instead of people that just line our wallets. I don’t really want to disparage anyone who votes for a benefit or tax cut for themselves, because I realize the psychology of that is really strong.

But I think it also means voting in people because they’re smart and have convinced you they really know what they’re doing. Just towing the line or following ideologies doesn’t seem to work toward the betterment of society. The devil’s in the details, right? There’s no ideology I know of that is correct 100% of the time.

So yeah, maybe what I’m saying is just outside the realm of reality: maybe the majority will never vote for anything except whatever benefits them the most directly.

Oh by the way, I think the housing crisis was also due to tax subsidies for buying a house, which incorrectly skewed the market demand for housing. I’ve got a few opinions about mortgages and the industry though…
You have to factor in that voters are rationally ignorant. From the perspective of the average voter, acquiring the type of knowledge required to become an informed voter is not worth the effort since one vote one way or the other is meaningless. That’s why people fall back on superficial factors like, “He’s such a charming man.”
 
“**Because if we try to discourage burning coal, we won’t have any electricity anymore? I wasn’t thinking of such drastic measures as shutting down coal plants tomorrow.”
**

Because this is exactly what we are doing. Shutting down coal-burning plants. NOW. It is taking place NOW. Today. AND, new EPA rules have been published that will shut down many non-electric-generation-related-boilers.

And the links to the actual news reports have been posted here on CAF.

Here is one; there are many more.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2664172/posts
I hope you understood the implication of what I wrote: if shutting down all coal plants means no one gets electricity, I’m not advocating we do that tomorrow. I do think we have a responsibility to prepare a reasonable transition. This link doesn’t really indicate to me that the coal plants weren’t given a chance, or that it will make people lose their electricty, etc. So basically I don’t think this one incident seems all that drastic.

Do I think they should shut it down? I don’t know. I do think that if a coal plant isn’t showing reasonable cooperation with requirements, it’s justified to shut them down provided the external consequences are minimized.
 
You have to factor in that voters are rationally ignorant. From the perspective of the average voter, acquiring the type of knowledge required to become an informed voter is not worth the effort since one vote one way or the other is meaningless. That’s why people fall back on superficial factors like, “He’s such a charming man.”
On the other hand, the November 2010 elections should have shocked you!

It wasn’t about charm.

It’s about fiscal responsibility.

How else can you explain the success of Chris Christie in New Jersey … a conservative was elected governor in the bluest of blue liberal states.

People do understand issues of taxation and its power to destroy the economy.

To paraphrase Marco Rubio: “which tax is going to increase jobs?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top