posted
I don't know that you even need to bring religion into it.
As human beings striving to be ethical, we have an obligation to provide for those who need.
However, it does confuse me when extremely religious Catholics are Republicans, and are thus against welfare, which is a world application of the lesson of the Good Samaritan, and for the war in Iraq which the Pope himself is against.
So although religion does apply to the problem, the more immediate drawing of the individual should lie in the universal morality of providing for those who need.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thor> "ALSO a FACT of the matter is MOST Billionaires made their money in Real Estate, Health, Communication, Energy. All NEEDS of of all people."
Exactly. Demand is high, so price is high, so profit is (usually) high. Or--let me put it another way--those who provide these very important things deserve to be compensated handsomely, for such a great service. Is there a limit? I suppose there is--but it is very far out.
Child of the Mind> As a matter of fact, it is arguable whether welfare is really a fulfillment of the obligation to help others. Of course, it is ultimately funded by our tax dollars, but that's an extraordinarily impersonal way of "giving" to people, especially since it is done by coercion on the government's part. Real benevolence is, by its nature, voluntary. Justice is appropriately legislated. Mercy legislated loses its good quality and becomes simple injustice, because mercy is inherently "better than the law demands".
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, it does confuse me when extremely religious Catholics are Republicans, and are thus against welfare, which is a world application of the lesson of the Good Samaritan, and for the war in Iraq which the Pope himself is against.
What's equally confusing is Catholic politicians supporting the maintenance of abortion legality. Just thought I'd add that to your list.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Silverblue Sun has a point... I don't see the logic in giving tax cuts to billionaires even if they provide jobs and services... Especially since many of them could lay off workers and move to mexico or some other country at the slightest whim causing a lot of American workers to get lesser paying jobs which means that they cannot afford the companies services.. Trickle down is illogical.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if you give any tax cuts in a progressive situation, someone at the top will always get the biggest cut. There's no way around it except by making the highest marginal rate continually higher, which is unsustainable. Eventually the highest rate will be brought down to more reasonable levels or there will be a constant talent drain to other economies.
posted
The Beatles didn't "end up" in America. George was living on his estate in England when he died. Paul and Ringo still maintain homes in England, and spend most of their time living there. Only John took up full residence in the U.S, and I'm pretty sure that had more to do with Yoko than the economy.
Regardless of whether it's tax breaks, or outright giveaways (pork barrel projects, single bid contracts, S&L bailouts, etc.) The gap between the wealthiest americans and the "average american" is growing at an unbelievable rate. The Japanese have a "maximum wage" law that pegs the compensation of the highest paid employee at 25X that of the lowest paid employee. Also, if the corporation has a loss, the highest paid employees are expected to absorb it first, before the lowest paid employees.
In the U.S it's just the opposite. Executives get paid astronomical bonuses for laying off thousands of workers during hard times.
The argument that taxing the rich is "stealing money that doesn't belong to the government" is exactly the same argument that the communists used to claim that "Capitalists" were criminals because they "stole" the money that was generated by the proletariat. Capitalism "exploits" workers in exactly the way that taxes "exploit" the rich. That is, in each case a larger framework is needed for the smaller economic systems to exist, but the larger framework needs to skim money from the system in order to support itself for the benefit of the entire system.
The question then is this: Which is the bigger rip off? Government exploiting the rich, or the rich exploiting the rest of us?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The argument that taxing the rich is "stealing money that doesn't belong to the government" is exactly the same argument that the communists used to claim that "Capitalists" were criminals because they "stole" the money that was generated by the proletariat.
Who is making such an argument?
quote:The question then is this: Which is the bigger rip off? Government exploiting the rich, or the rich exploiting the rest of us?
Who is this 'us' you're talking about? I am not at all wealthy-in fact, I fit quite low right now on the economic ladder-but I do not feel 'exploited' by the rich. And I've worked for big-time corporations before, too. I have more control over my financial destiny than 'the rich' ever will; complaints that I am being 'exploited' by them serve only to victimize myself and justify any future failures-in addition, I acknowledge, to any legitimate complaints. None of this is to say that 'the rich' do not exploit the poor, either. Just to point out that everyone in America, except for the most desperately poor, is exploiting someone else.
Do you shop at Wal-Mart? Buy produce? Eat fast-food? Ever have your landscape done professionally? Ever bought something Made In China? Consider that, everyone who complains about the rich exploiting the poor: if you answered 'yes' to any of those questions, then by your own definition of exploitation, you're screwing someone else.
quote:The gap between the wealthiest americans and the "average american" is growing at an unbelievable rate.
So is standard-of-living, the middle-class, life-expectancies, etc. How many people does Bill Gates-a robber-baron type if there ever was one-employ?
quote:In the U.S it's just the opposite. Executives get paid astronomical bonuses for laying off thousands of workers during hard times.
Sometimes, this is true. I do believe there should be laws against high-level exeuctives profiting from the termination of masses of employees, no matter what the times are like. However, I don't think mass-layoffs themselves should be outlawed.
Oh, and the government exploits everyone, not just the rich.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are you dodging the question? As for the other two, standard of living just grows along with inflation, and life expectancy is no real solid argument for current economic issues. It would be a total failure for life expectancy to halt. Since I never said it was a total failure, that doesn't disagree with me. The growing middle class claim, however, seems like it was made up on the fly. Can you back it up, or did you toss it in there because it sounded good?
Kind of like the "1.5 million new jobs" claim constantly touted. They don't tell you that around 800,000 of those new jobs are self-employment, which is a euphemism for "not eligible for unemployment and don't have a job somewhere" in many cases.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, though: I say that because I hold myself responsible for making decisions about my future, decisions such as which jobs to take, which skills to learn, which schools to go to, which degrees to work towards, etc.
Granted, I have more freedom due to my unattached circumstances than many. But the restricting circumstances often have more to do with the choices we as individuals make, than do 'the rich'.
Children, families, illness, education (or lack thereof), location, etc., on an individual level depending on the specifics of those factors, these circumstances can have a great deal of control over one's financial destiny. But it's not the rich that cause people to have children, or families that need assistance. It's not the rich that makes people sick. It's not the rich that makes people quit school or continue. It's not the rich that makes people stay in one place.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:WASHINGTON -- More than 90,000 people who have been out of work for months will lose their federal benefits today, when a program to aid the long-term unemployed expires.
During the first six months of next year, more than 2 million unemployed people across the country will be cut off from the extra assistance, unless Congress acts.
quote:How about employment—smelling delicious, too? The latest recession, as officially dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research, began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001, but the aroma lingers on. From March 2001 through July 2003, 2.7 million jobs disappeared, in the greatest employment contraction since the 1930s: for the first time since World War II, the total number of employees on payrolls (private sector and government) continued to fall 20 months into recovery from a recession. The previous record, impressive in its own right, was 13 months, following the end of the 1990-1991 recession.
...
The official rate is the percentage of all workers who are unemployed, expressed as unemploy- ment/labor force. The numerator, unemployment, is the number of jobless people who have actively looked for work during the last four weeks. The denominator is the number of people in the labor force, which equals employment plus unemployment, or people who have jobs plus those who are unemployed as defined in the numerator.
This measure understates unemployment in two key respects. First, unemployment excludes involuntary part-timers—people who want full-time work but have to settle for part-time or split-week schedules. Second, it excludes “discouraged workers”—those who believe they can no longer find work and stop looking or who indicate they want a job and have looked for work sometime in the indefinite recent past. People in this category are no longer actively seeking work and are therefore classified as “not in the labor force” (neither employed nor unemployed).
Thus, as happened last summer, an increase in numbers of discouraged workers can actually reduce the official unemployment rate. The labor force as officially defined (employed plus unemployed) totaled 147,096,000 in June and 146,530,000 in August—a decrease of 566,000, during which time the official unemployment rate fell from 6.4 to 6.1 percent. The reason for the drop is that 566,000 workers vanished (ceased looking for work and were no longer considered to be in the labor force).
For this and other reasons, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides a series of “alternative unemployment measures,” which go almost entirely ignored and unreported by the major media and news organizations. One of the alternative measures shows that if both involuntary part-timers and discouraged workers were added to the unemployment rate as officially measured, the rate for November 2003 would stand at 9.5 percent of the labor force, instead of the official 5.9 percent.
Also, for most of those "self-employed," health coverage and insurance coverage are negligible to absent, yet these people are counted along side wage earners who are covered.
How is that for a start?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good grief. I'm trying to find statistics on the middle-class that aren't hopelessly politicized, and having no luck so far. Given that, it does make me wonder why I believe that the middle-class is not in dire trouble. I shouldn't have ANY beliefs on the subject; I'll have to discard that one.
Justa, that IDEAS database looks very interesting. I'll have to take a look at it, but it's pretty daunting nonetheless.
I do understand the distinction between 'employed' and 'self-employed'. I just don't think it's necessarily the government's job to protect unneeded jobs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you had more financial freedom than the rich had financial freedom. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Nor do I think I have more control over my financial destiny than the rich do over their own. Obviously, the more resources one has, the more choices are available. I just think that I exert a great deal more control over my own individual future than the rich do over my own future.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Children, families, illness, education (or lack thereof), location, etc., on an individual level depending on the specifics of those factors, these circumstances can have a great deal of control over one's financial destiny. But it's not the rich that cause people to have children, or families that need assistance. It's not the rich that makes people sick. It's not the rich that makes people quit school or continue. It's not the rich that makes people stay in one place.
Hmm. I agree that the US is built on the concept of personal freedom. Also, it is designed to be a government of and for the people. However, I think that more and more one has to be independently wealthy to be able to exert any political force in government. This is most notable in Presidential elections, where the costs of campaigning are so astronomical as to keep someone of limited means out of the race.
so...
Although I agree that I am responsible for all of my choices that change my financial destiny, I am not responsible for the way that opportunities are presented. Often, that is going to be governed by elected official, who, more and more, are rich. Thus, I'm not sure that "the rich", have no influence on my financial destiny.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say that, either, rubble. 'The rich' obviously have an impact, and exert some control over, my financial destiny.
Also, the wealthy and more powerful have always exerted more power on the government than the 'common man'. In fact, I think this trend is decreasing, really, if you look at the whole history of USA democracy.
There was a time when only landowners could vote; when only men could vote; when Senators did not participate in direct elections, etc.
That the wealthy still exert power over government in proportion with their wealth does not necessarily mean it's getting worse. Another explanation is that it used to be a LOT worse, and is still continuing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see your point. I still think that even though the electorate is expanding, the "electable" (sic) is contracting.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember when we wouldn't let people with Black Skin vote? There had to be a large number of people who had reasons why they believed heart and soul that black people didn't have the right to vote. They lived and died believing in something that was totally wrong, and totally false, and many of them were "good church going christians."
This is different, but similar.
318 or so BILLIONAIRES in America.
Two Billion people on Earth live on less than two dollars a day.
Billionaires have better access to EVERYTHING on Earth (except God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit).
They are the ones who can afford to BUY a million man army to fight one poor man.
If you're going to stand strong and tall for something, pick a better cause in need than defending a billionaire who isn't getting a fair shake, so the government has to re deal himn a new hand with a few more aces.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The gap between the wealthiest americans and the "average american" is growing at an unbelievable rate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is standard-of-living, the middle-class, life-expectancies, etc. How many people does Bill Gates-a robber-baron type if there ever was one-employ?
"Billionaires employ a lot of people."
If you split a Billion dollars one thousand ways, that creates a thousand people who have One Hundred Million dollars.
Where is the proof that one man with a Billion Dollars wll employ more people than One Thousand Men and Women with One Hundred Million Dollars Each?
It is only sane in a social sytem that requires where 50% of the entire work force make less than 8 dollars and hour, to regulate those at the very top of the darwinistic economic chain from becoming more powerful than ten major cities.
If I were president, right now minimum wage would be $10.00 and All those people who made billions of dollars from the American money pool would be taxed 50% on every dollar earned from that point on.
We want thousands of Innocent Iraqis to sacrafice their lives and homes for forced American Freedom, and we want thousands of Innocent America soldeirs to sacrafice their lives and their homes for Occupation, but in the same shared time we want to reward billionaires for being billionaires?
I don't want that.
hell and destruction will rain upon the future of the whole world in that mindset moves forward and blankets the earth with a mental smog.
If a nation is built on falacies as foundation, they will fall, if nations are built on falacies as foundation in the name of God, they will burn.
posted
Well I've been reading that IDEAS data, and I have to say that while I can't be sure, it certainly looks like the middle-class is shrinking. Or at the very least, it's not growing as well as it could be, which amounts to the same thing. So the belief I had about the middle-class, that it's growing, was I think mistaken.
But man, economics seems more like voodoo, on both sides of the aisle. Makes me wanna be a commie.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
