1
   

Kerry has lost my vote.

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 11:32 am
Nor can I, sorry, that was petty of me.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 12:58 pm
OCCOM, you're one of the most reasonable debators on this forum -- don't change your viewpoint on my account. Laughing
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 May, 2004 06:54 pm
Nods.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 11:15 am
edgarblythe wrote:
Objectivists think they create everything and that the grunts and poor are parasites. They don't recognize that all parts of society are integral to the creation of wealth. They arrogantly treat workers as cogs to their personal machines, failing to recognize that without workers their wealth becomes nonexistant. Objectivists truly believe they alone have created their wealth and so don't want others to reap benefits, except what they toss them for bones.

I've seen nobody put forth this notion, but you. <straw dog alert!>

The question is not whether society functions at some level based on the interdependence of all within that society, but whether society can function well if you remove or drastically diminish the incentives for the creation of wealth.

I note that the Greens would guarantee a jo to anyone who wants one, at a proposed wage of roughly twice the current federal minimum. I have a few questions I'd love answered:

1) Will the Greens guarantee people their choice of jobs? If not, under what circumstances will they deny someone a job that person wants?

2) Will the Greens lower the wages of some in order to raise the wages of others?

3) What will the Greens do with an individual who does not want a job?

Anyone got a Green answer for me on these? (Not your personal opinion, but some Green Party source?)
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 11:07 pm
A good rundown, scrat.

The Green Party position is, indeed, frightening. However, I am used to reading nonsense produced by the left wing.
Your post, scrat, reminds me of the book by Professor Andrew Hacker, an extreme left winger and the author of Two Nations. In the book to which I am referring, "Money"- P. 1998, Professor Hacker goes the Green Party one better. Hacker proposes that since no one really needs more than one hundred thousand dollars a year to live adequately, anyone who makes more than one hundred thousand dollars in a year must remit the excess to the government who will distribute it to the millions who fall below the median yearly income in the USA. Professor Hacker assures the reader that this would benefit the USA greatly and would increase the happiness of the largest number and hurt no one.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 07:57 am
Andrew Hacker: Money: Who Has How Much and Why
Emporter, the following Hacker book appears not to support your claim.---BBB

Money: Who Has How Much and Why
by Andrew Hacker

Book Summary:

Summary Description of Money: Who Has How Much and Why
A staple of American conversation, from barstools to sermons to op-ed pages, is that money isn't everything. And yet it seems that nowadays, nothing else counts nearly so much.

In this book, Andrew Hacker, an eminent sociologist, uses his knack for making statistics come alive to address such questions as "Has affirmative action helped African-Americans financially?," "Do the same professions that used to ensure lifelong economic security still do so?," and "Are the rich getting richer, and if so, why aren't the poor doing better as well?"

Hacker doesn't conclude with a call for income redistribution--he doesn't think it would be heeded--but the facts he amasses tell the story of a country that inordinately promotes non-social ambition and, just as excessively, penalizes children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book Reviews of Money: Who Has How Much and Why

The last chapter was maybe the most insteresting. It focused on the economic changes in the US since WW2. It is anybody's guess what the future will bring, but it seems like it will continue as it is now until there is some big crash or other disaster.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book Review: An interesting look at how money gets distributed in the US.

Andrew Hacker's Money is a great look at who has the money in America and how they got it. He talks in great detail about how the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. I was astounded to read that in 1997 there were 137 individuals who claimed over $1 billion in income. Almost 70,000 tax returns claimed an income of at least $1 million. There are far more rich people out there than I thought and it leads me to believe that if they can do it, so can I.
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 12:37 am
Dear BumbleBeeBoogie. Please do not attempt to correct a person who has read the book as I have. Some like you have only read the reviews. I will quote from the appropriate pages. Hacker is indeed a hard left liberal who is, in my opinion, a few bricks short of a load.

From "Money"-Andrew Hacker-c. 1997- Scribner-
P. 55-56
quote

"So let's see what happens if the ceiling is brought down to $100,000, a little less than today's base pay of a four-star general. This would in fact add another 3.4 million households to the group that would have to give up something, in some cases a great deal. After subtracting taxes alread paid and leaving enough for the $100,000 incomes, the amount on hand for transfer would come to 285 billion.
Once transferred, the money from the $100,000 ceiling couldcreatea national floor of $22,220, if it were distributed among the bottom 20 percent. The ensuing ratio would give the best-off group about four and a half times the income of those at the minimum. Indeed, with a floor of $22,219, it could be argued that there would be no poor at all. And with a $100,000 ceiling, there would be no rich either."


This is, of course, the liberal pipe dream of a socialist Utopia in which income is redistributed.

Some idiots actually believe such a society is feasible. Hacker appears to be one of those idiots.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 12:50 am
Nice excerpt Mporter. Just big enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hacker is indeed an idiot. How's lovely Lake Geneva treating you?
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:28 am
Fine, except that the housing, especially on the lake, is getting out of reach. Only the very rich, very talented or very hard working who are simultaneously very lucky, can afford to live in one of those houses. Everyone in Lake Geneva would like to do so.

That is what makes our country great.

Men should desire more than they can have.

Or what's heaven for?

OccomBill-I presume Palm Beach is also very expensive!!!
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:31 am
Occom Bill- I like your John Galt quote. My favorite is the quote from Ortega Y Gasset's book- "The Revolt of the Masses" which is:

"The mob goes out in search of bread and, in the process, wrecks the bakeries"

That line is not from "Atlas Shrugged" but it should be.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 01:47 am
The quoted portion of my sig line is actually Edmund Burke... a bright Irish fellow now dead 200 years. Yours would indeed fit well in Atlas Shrugged (careful bringing that book up around here... a real love/hate title if you know what I mean).

The island of Palm Beach is indeed ludicrous priced like your lovely lakefront. My condo's across the intercoastal from there, where you can still buy reasonably. I grew up in Lake Geneva so I know what you mean. I still visit Wisconsin 4 or 5 times a year. Go Packers!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2019 at 03:01:52