(08/07) Who would you like to see as the next President of the United States?

[Pete Hanlin]

Having a safetybelt law reduces deaths and injuries and thereby means less expenses for individuals and for government (which is the people via taxes and votes).
...which brings us right back to my highway/driveway/tollway analogy. Your argument seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong)- government needs to dictate some behaviors (e.g., wearing seatbelts) because these behaviors reduce the costs of government programs (and, by extension, the cost to taxpayers for those programs).

In my opinion, this is the strongest argument against government involvement (aka "socialization") of one's personal life. After all, once you begin depending upon the government to provide for aspects of your personal life, you are inviting intrusion into your life by that government.

(BTW, clicking my seatbelt is a subconscious habit of mine- can't imagine why any rational person wouldn't buckle up.)

I hope you aren't referring to me but since you were responding to my quote I can only assume you were.
If so, please don't try and put words into my mouth or assign views to me that I do not have. It's an intellectually dishonest debate trick and I'm getting tired of seeing people use it. I've been known to do the same thing and I'm learning not to. :)
Actually I believe it's the job of our government to look after the welfare of it's own citizens first.
I did include you in the group to which I referred- my apologies. However, I wasn't trying to be intellectually dishonest- I simply made (an apparently erroneous) assumption that you favor a more even distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor (based on your views of the tax code and government programs).

Just to make sure I correctly understand your view- you believe wealth should be distributed more evenly among the citizens of our country, but our country should do everything possible to maintain our disproportionate share of the world's wealth. If that's an oversimplification, please help me understand. I guess I was reacting to what I perceived to be an inconsistency (i.e., its unfair that certain members of our society have tremendous wealth compared to other members- but its okay that our country has tremendous wealth compared to other countries).

Personally, while I would also like to see America hold on to economic prosperity for as long as possible, the tides of history are against us doing so. Whether it be the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the British, the Russians... all great societies/economies eventually succumb to the cyclical nature of history (my guess is China will become the next economic superpower).

Practically speaking, I believe in free trade- with the proviso that the government should step in to equalize trade when a foreign government is unfairly influencing trade (and China in particular is guilty of grossly unfair trade practices at this time).

Again, my apologies for any erroneous assumptions. I enjoy our debates because I think we are both open to viewing our own opinions critically.

[1968]

Just to make sure I correctly understand your view- you believe wealth should be distributed more evenly among the citizens of our country, but our country should do everything possible to maintain our disproportionate share of the world's wealth. If that's an oversimplification, please help me understand. I guess I was reacting to what I perceived to be an inconsistency (i.e., its unfair that certain members of our society have tremendous wealth compared to other members- but its okay that our country has tremendous wealth compared to other countries).

Good catch... I was wondering the same thing.

[Steve Machol]

Just to make sure I correctly understand your view- you believe wealth should be distributed more evenly among the citizens of our country, but our country should do everything possible to maintain our disproportionate share of the world's wealth. If that's an oversimplification, please help me understand.

Not sure I understand what you mean or where you got that from.

Do you mean do I believe that there should be some higher taxes on people that benefit more from what this country offers? If so, then I guess I have to plead guilty to that. You should take note, however, that the Social Securiy tax is regressive and therefore a disportionate burden on the least wealthy in our society.

However I never said anything about redistributing wealth or that having rich people is 'unfair'. Where did you get that from?

As for believing that our Government's first priorty should be the welfare of it's own citizens, I plead guilty to believing that too.

Does this mean that you don't believe that?

[chip anderson]

Pete: Do you really believe for a minite that the cost of healthcare is reduced by seatbelts at all? Have you got a clue how much all that damn safety equipment (that we have no choice about) costs each and every one of us? Trust me the cost of safety equipment on your car(s) alone would buy you many times more health insureance than you could possibly afford to buy now.

Chip

Our healthcare costs were far, far less before the government took care of us. Where do you draw the line on what the government should be able to shove down our throats, when it costs us money? Is this like the opthalmologists who told me that they thought dispensing was unethical but told me when they changed thier mind: "Chip, it's this way, it's not costing me much money?"

[1968]

Pete: Do you really believe for a minite that the cost of healthcare is reduced by seatbelts at all?

I hope Pete answers "yes" because the preponderance of evidence suggests that the wearing of seatbelts does lower healthcare costs. Just a taste...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...RVAbstractPlus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum

Have you got a clue how much all that damn safety equipment (that we have no choice about) costs each and every one of us? Trust me the cost of safety equipment on your car(s) alone would buy you many times more health insureance than you could possibly afford to buy now.

What's the point? Having health insurance isn't going to return you to normal if you're ejected into the path of a big rig or enjoying the high life as a drooling vegetable.

[Steve Machol]

Our healthcare costs were far, far less before the government took care of us.

Wow! The government is taking care of us and no one told me about it? That's great news! :D

Where the heck do I sign up for this health care coverage? I sure could use it.

Also while your at it, please provide a list of all industrialized nations that have higher healthcare costs than the U.S and that have universal healthcare. I'd like to rub their snotty little noses in them facts.

And since we obviously must have the best healthcare system in the world where again do we fall in the rankings of Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy? We gotta be #1, right? After all we're the U.S.A.

[chip anderson]

Steve:

What would you call laws that "protect us from ourselves" if not the government protecting us? Are we not part of the high cost of healthcare. Are we not charging $600.00 for a product we used to be happy to get $45.00 for? Of course we have "technical improvements". Or product is thinner and lighter but it doesn't focus light as well as the $45.00 product and it sure doesn't last as long. Are we not working for people that are charging $200.00 for a $35.00 eye exam and wanting to refuse to give the patient what he really came in for (a spectacle Rx)?

I am not knocking our industry or our "profession" but we are the increased cost of health care, but that's all right because it's us.

"Bono si publico" may be the most dangerous concept of all.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Well fine and dandy then. I not do it again sir.

Well, that's only fair. You moaned about me referring to President Bush as Shrub, so I stopped.
Funny thing is, I heard him referred to that by a British friend of mine in another forum. Then I read Molly Ivins' obit and I see where it was her that had coined that term. I dunno- I never read her columns anyway. My paper is a biased conservative media member that doesn't let us read stuff like that. You have to get the Charleston Gazette for that.

[gemstone]

Well, that's only fair. You moaned about me referring to President Bush as Shrub, so I stopped.

Please show where I did that. I can't find that anywhere.

[k12311997]

You moaned about me referring to President Bush as Shrub, so I stopped.

actually that was me. I didn't moan I just pointed out that reasoned debate should not include name calling.

[Grubendol]

not to say that using Shrub and Osama are the same thing....one is another way of saying the same type of plant, the other is referring to a patriot as a terrorist. ;)

[DragonLensmanWV]

[quote=k12311997;204091]

You moaned about me referring to President Bush as Shrub, so I stopped.
quote]


actually that was me. I didn't moan I just pointed out that reasoned debate should not include name calling.

Yeah, I saw that but it was mostly Bill that was all agog about it. I should have considered the source there.:o So I guess Gemstone really has no problem with it? :drop:It just seems weird that they can call Democrats names, like Dumbocrat,etc., but they sure get up in arms if you call their guys names. So, until I see everyone referring to each other's parties without insults I shall refer to them as Repooplicans.:D

[chip anderson]

Dragon:

Let me know if you want it, we have a biased left wing plant will let you read nothing but things like that. I can send you info for a subscription.
And this is the main paper for Jackson (and the rest of ) Mississippi.

Chip

[Steve Machol]

Steve:

What would you call laws that "protect us from ourselves" if not the government protecting us?

Then I would add laws against drug use and prostitution into that category. Are you against those laws too? If so, then at least you are consistent and I applaud you for that. If not, then there is a fundamental inconsistency in your position that you should be able to recognize.

[Pete Hanlin]

Do you mean do I believe that there should be some higher taxes on people that benefit more from what this country offers? If so, then I guess I have to plead guilty to that. You should take note, however, that the Social Securiy tax is regressive and therefore a disportionate burden on the least wealthy in our society.
It was my impression you believe that tax rates on the wealthy need to be increased- even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest the wealthy pay a share of tax revenue approximately equal to (or even greater) than their share of income (that is, if the top x% makes 25% of income/revenue, they seem to pay about 25% of the tax burden).

Given your clarification, I'll assume that assumption was in error.

Regarding the contradiction, however (which I still think is valid for others)- when a segment of the population pays a portion of the taxes required to operate the country that is greater than the portion of revenue they possess, that would be defined as the redistribution of wealth. Under the current tax rates, there are plenty of people who receive a tax refund- even though they didn't actually pay any taxes (straight redistribution).

It seems a pretty straight comparison to note that Americans consume far more of the world's resources (and earn far more income) than the size of our population would seem to merit. Yet even those who would favor redistributing wealth within our own country seem to be in favor preserving an imbalance of income and wealth between the US and other countries.

The inconsistency seems to me to be- if its a matter of someone else being wealthy and being forced to share wealth (i.e., the rich in America)- these people seem to feel entitled to a piece of the pie. When it comes to being one of the wealthy (i.e., being an American), there is the desire to "protect what's mine" from others who want a piece of our pie.

Personally, I believe in "just acquisition." Namely, inequity of wealth is both natural and justified- as long as the original acquisition of the wealth was through just means. In other words, if your parents earned a ton of money and handed it down to you, there's no reason you should have to redistribute some of that money to others- as long as your parents acquired the money via legal means. Same goes for countries.

Pete: Do you really believe for a minite that the cost of healthcare is reduced by seatbelts at all? Have you got a clue how much all that damn safety equipment (that we have no choice about) costs each and every one of us? Trust me the cost of safety equipment on your car(s) alone would buy you many times more health insureance than you could possibly afford to buy now.
I could personally care less regarding the correlation between seatbelt use and the costs of healthcare. My rationale for clicking my belt is related to my belief that I'm far less likely to be ejected from my automobile in a crash if I'm secured to the seat.
I'm against laws requiring people to wear seatbelts, because one's personal safety is one's own business. If someone doesn't value their life- or has the convoluted belief that going without a seatbelt is somehow safer- that's their decision to make... just don't ask me to pay for their medical bills or funerals if they are injured.
Auto & health insurance companies should be allowed to opt out of covering injuries if seatbelts aren't worn- which makes wearing them the responsibility of the driver/passenger. Just like home insurers do not cover flood damage on all policies (as numerous residents of New Orleans discovered).

[Steve Machol]

It was my impression you believe that tax rates on the wealthy need to be increased- even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest the wealthy pay a share of tax revenue approximately equal to (or even greater) than their share of income (that is, if the top x% makes 25% of income/revenue, they seem to pay about 25% of the tax burden).

I don't believe I ever said anything about tax increaes. I could be wrong. Also I believe that your figures only look at the income tax and not other mandatory taxes that are regressive and affect the poor proportionately more - Social Security, Medicare, Sales taxes.

Also I did state previously that I believe the entire tax code needs to be revised and would consider a tax on consumption as a replaccement for the income tax - very similar to Europe's VAT or the FAIR tax proposed by many conservatives.

I'm not locked into any specific proposal. I just believe the entire system should be looked at and rebuilt from the ground up. But as I also said, this will likely never happen because of all the vested interests that are pouring money into campain coffers and buying our politicians.

Regarding the contradiction, however (which I still think is valid for others)- when a segment of the population pays a portion of the taxes required to operate the country that is greater than the portion of revenue they possess, that would be defined as the redistribution of wealth.

How is this 'redistribution of wealth'? If I was advocating taking money from the rich and directly giving it to someone else, that would be redistibution. I don't buy into the argument that higher tax rates on the people that benefit more from our society and government is 'redistribution of wealth', but we'll agree to disagree on that. :)

It seems a pretty straight comparison to note that Americans consume far more of the world's resources (and earn far more income) than the size of our population would seem to merit. Yet even those who would favor redistributing wealth within our own country seem to be in favor preserving an imbalance of income and wealth between the US and other countries.

I see your point but it ignores an important fact. There are many of us who believe it is possible to reduce our countries consumption of the world's resources without reducing the standard of living. No point getting off into environmental arguments though because it would just elicit the predictable knee-jerk responses.

Personally, I believe in "just acquisition." Namely, inequity of wealth is both natural and justified- as long as the original acquisition of the wealth was through just means.

I don't disagree with that.

In other words, if your parents earned a ton of money and handed it down to you, there's no reason you should have to redistribute some of that money to others- as long as your parents acquired the money via legal means. Same goes for countries.

Again we have a different definition of redistribution. No need to add more to this.

[chip anderson]

Perhaps if we stopped all aid to countries capable of self sustainance like France, England, etc. They would consume less of the world's resources and we could continue to consume more.

[Steve Machol]

Chip, could you please answer the question in post #89? Thanks.

[Steve Machol]

Pete,

You overlooked this question:

As for believing that our Government's first priorty should be the welfare of it's own citizens, I plead guilty to believing that too.

Does this mean that you don't believe that?

[1968]

Perhaps if we stopped all aid to countries capable of self sustainance like France, England, etc. They would consume less of the world's resources and we could continue to consume more.

Given that the United States has a trade deficit with France and the UK, I wonder if they think the same of us.

[1968]

actually that was me. I didn't moan I just pointed out that reasoned debate should not include name calling.

In this forum, reason ends when the debate begins. Cheers!

[k12311997]

[quote=DragonLensmanWV;204129]

Yeah, I saw that but it was mostly Bill that was all agog about it. I should have considered the source there.:o So I guess Gemstone really has no problem with it? :drop:It just seems weird that they can call Democrats names, like Dumbocrat,etc., but they sure get up in arms if you call their guys names. So, until I see everyone referring to each other's parties without insults I shall refer to them as Repooplicans.:D

As you wish, I really haven't participated in this particular love fest.

My concern with the other thread is that I was part of the discussion ,the worst term I use is liberal. I don't belittle others regardless of how little respect I have for them and ask that others engaging me in conversation do the same.

[Pete Hanlin]

As for believing that our Government's first priorty should be the welfare of it's own citizens, I plead guilty to believing that too.
Does this mean that you don't believe that?
I thought I did answer this question... I would judge that- while Americans do have a disproportionate share of the world's wealth- the acquisition of that wealth was by just means. Therefore, the rest of the world has no legitimate claim for redistribution.

Some Americans feel that wealth brings a personal responsibility (and I believe it does), and voluntarily redistribute wealth through personal contribution. All I'm proposing is the same should apply to the wealthiest Americans. As long as wealth was justly acquired, there can be no governmental coercion to share wealth.

BTW, having read your clarification regarding your views of the tax system, I tried to make a point of excluding you from my observations in the last post. I still think the observation above poses a valid question to Americans who claim we need to "sock it to the rich," however (the observation being: "Be careful who you sock- because, by comparison with the rest of the world- you are 'the rich.'").

Do I think Americans can maintain our position as the country with the most lavish lifestyle? Short term, perhaps... over time, however, globalization is going to increase the lifestyle of other countries and- necessarily- decrease our own... Regardless of what our government does- its simply an economic fact. The world can not support an entire population living like we do, so the development of other economies will eventually have to bite into our own lifestyle as they use resources currently consumed by the US (if you're in construction, you already have noticed a lot of steel and wood being consumed by China).

Now that Sen. Thompson is officially running for President, I'm getting to read about him (Newsweek ran an article titled "Lazy Like a Fox"), and watch him (on Leno last night). Impressed so far...

[1968]

As long as wealth was justly acquired, there can be no governmental coercion to share wealth.

That's one of the most rational things I've read on Optiboard. I nominate Pete for President!

[k12311997]

That's one of the most rational things I've read on Optiboard. I nominate Pete for President!

I'd second that but Pete probably wouldn't want the pay cut and added stress.