Joe: Mr. Friedman did his usual exemplary job of illustrating the obstacles of freedom. (Missing is the alternative solution.) The only part I truly take offense to was the wording of the "Middle East's addiction to authoritarianism". This is a condition of unchecked oppression and shouldn't be used as an argument against liberation. It is tantamount to suggesting the victims of said oppression are somehow exercising free will when they exhibit the effects of same. The staggeringly high price of change (as in Iraq) is still dwarfed by the even more staggering price of "no change (as in North Korea). Your constant derision of the current attempt at change (bullets flying) is like comparing the relative peace in the US during Britain's rule to the treacherous climate of war during the revolution. Absent seems to be any recognition that the current conditions are part of the process, not the end of the struggle. Such a pessimistic focal point would preclude any attempt at overthrowing a brutal dictator and in essence highlights the reward received by the oppressors for their oppressive practices. The bully unchallenged serves not only to encourage the continuation of his own oppression but as a shining example to others to practice the same. You would do well to consider the bully who's currently on trial for his life serves as quite the opposite example.
Friedman also errs in his conclusion that the US's oil consumption is the end-all be-all to the promotion of oppression in the Middle East. While staggeringly high, The US's own oil consumption is not the only factor in the price of oil and in all likelihood will not even be the biggest factor in years to come. $20 per barrel oil freed no one from oppression nor did it discourage terrorism in any way in years past, so there's no reason to believe it would have any substantial impact in years to come. I find Fiedman's depiction of the obstacles to be both enlightening and insightful but his conclusions more than a little lacking in foundation and utterly devoid of suggested solutions. Bush's speechwriters were accurate when they wrote "hindsight alone is not wisdom and second guessing is not a strategy". Friedman seems to follow the status quo of his peers in his absent-of-alternative assessment.
Pelosi's (and peers) demand for setting up a goal line for our enemy (troop withdrawal timetable) falls far well short of her incessant demand for details in the present administration's strategy. I believe the President's people correctly assume that further clarification of same would serve only to provide additional nay-saying talking points, without alternative suggestions, as well as provide additional insight to our enemies. I would agree with an assessment that there is little to profit in that.
nimh wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Joe Nation wrote: How about it, Tico and Bill, just how deep a deficit do you think George is going to dig in the next 1000 or so days? [..]
Pretty damn deep. Insofar as a 235 Million dollar AIDs measure is concerned, I'll gladly pay my share. Same goes for liberating oppressed people throughout the world, wherever he may find them and for whatever excuses he offers publicly. I'll continue to consider tax dollars spent keeping the US's war machine the finest ever conceived of money well spent.
OK, so you're worried about the deficit that's going to be pretty damn deep, yet consider the government spending dollars that are now proposed or already being spent good value for money. Does that mean you're in favour of raising taxes? How else would you raise the money for that spending, if you dont want an even deeper deficit?
Put simply; oil. That's right, I said it. Tax it even more than the staggering rate it's currently being taxed. Global Warming, Foreign Oil Dependence and our Massive Deficit could all be substantially addressed with a higher gasoline tax alone. Step Two: (in broad strokes because I have stuff to do today); scrap our current Income Tax system and move to a National Sales Tax instead. This would eliminate the need to solve a myriad of Tax avoidance issues, not the least of which being "un-declarable income" from illegal sources. Step Three: Gradually raise import taxes until they are on par with the taxes levied against our exports. By doing so gradually, our competitors would have little choice but to meet us in the middle. There are many more steps of course, but those are the most important, IMO.
Over taxing small to medium size businesses; thumbs down. Take me for example. My restaurant employed 53 people last year, about half being necessary for an average year round staff. Half the number again and you'll get an approximate number of Full-Time primary income earners for their households. This year I'm hoping to double that number with the opening of a second restaurant. Most of these people earned more money than I did, despite better than anticipated Gross Income. Hands down, the single biggest beneficiary would be the Government of the USA followed by the State of Wisconsin. If a straw should break this camel's back; let there be no doubt it would be the tax "man". Now I'll grant you; should I succeed in fighting my way through the first several years I may be well rewarded for my trouble. Am I the guy who should carry a larger tax burden than the already disproportionately huge one I carry now? I think notÂ… and upon introspection I doubt the dozens of people I employ would disagree. Without the promise of potentially substantial rewards, I wouldn't have taken such a proportionately huge risk in the first place. A substantial tax break for me (my business, actually) would virtually guarantee the creation of another couple dozen jobs next year. Conversely, a substantial increase in tax penalties would virtually guarantee the opposite.
Go ahead and scoff at the theory of trickle down economics while I continue to support a dozen households more generously than my own. I'm claiming no benevolent motive for my struggle; it boils down to simple capitalist greed. The side effects of this greed are what continue to drive this nation's economy upward. Any tax structure that promotes the entrepreneurial spirit is as good for the nation as any that thwarts it is bad. This, is essentially how I define the "American way". Win, lose or draw in my personal quest for wealth; the result is dozens of additional contributors to the nation's tax base.
All of that notwithstanding; your answer is yes. I would gladly pay more in taxes to keep the programs I deem necessary and beneficial to creating a better world for me to live in. I would, however, encourage questions on how best to get me to pay my share of "more" as I believe I have illustrated a simple raising of my taxes would likely accomplish the opposite.
Aside for the communist-leaning liberal types (no insult to anyone intended): Consider the relatively tiny societal benefit of dividing my meager fortune as opposed to the substantially greater benefits of a less fettered pursuit. I think it's fair to say my greedy pursuit easily provides a greater benefit to my fellow man.
