Comments on: Once Rinos Are Extinct…

By: DBKP FLASH Headline News » RINO Writers: Biting the Ankles of a Not-So-Big Base

Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:28:40 +0000

[...] conservative boogeymen to knock about? (You can see one of the most popular on display in Once Rinos Are Extinct…: the pitchfork-wielding crowd of conservatives coming for–well, the reader can see for [...]

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:20:17 +0000

ktward continued

So we are taxed from all sides and it is getting close to 50% the tipping point.

I have traveled and lived in Europe have many Euro friends both here and there and I'm telling you that the ones in Europe say things like, "Well, I could be a manager but it is a lot more work and not really much more money (taxes and other socialist factors) so I'm not really interested." What this means, and I'm sure you have seen this in your own life on one level or another, that the kind of person who wants this job for not much more money is getting something else out of it. Usually the type of person attracted to this job when the financial incentive is removed is the control-freak the manipulator, the kind of person who likes power and likes to be the boss, or the narcissist who likes to command the attention of his underlings. This happened in spades in the Soviet Union and one big reason why the whole country collapsed.

I have to ask why are you here? I asked Spartacus the same question. Obviously you are a leftist. This is a Republican site. I am not posting at some Dem site, so are you trying to convince us of something? Personally I'm done trying to convince committed leftists anything.

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:19:12 +0000

ktward continued

Funny when leftists argue (others do this too, to be fair, but it is quite predominant with leftists) they cite the whole when convenient and at other times they cite parts.

What heart surgeon is going to give up his practice because his taxes are a bit higher? Well, that looks pretty convincing on the surface - except when you actually see a shortage of ob/gyns in various parts of the country, mostly due to high insurance premiums (and a lawsuit happy demographic of patients perhaps) but taxes are a significant factor too. Bottom line they can't make money and pay off their loans. So there IS a reaction at some point, and we are, and will be, creeping toward that point relentlessly so it is inevitable. Once Universal Health Care is enacted, pay for all doctors will go down significantly. Pay for nurses, who are vital, will too. So the squeeze will happen on both sides, pay and taxes. Don't forget, lower pay from the top income receivers results in lower revenues for State and federal Treasuries. Look at NY State. They had to raise taxes on nearly everything they could to make up the shortfall from Wall Streeters. They even are taxing clothing and shoes now, something that was previously immune for obvious reasons. Now a mother in Harlem or the Bronx has to shell out another 8% for her kids shoes, because the rich aren't so rich anymore.

Which brings me to what happens long-term re the MJ article. The active heart surgeon has already made it, he/she has already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in med school and working years for lower wages than they are making now. So no, not many, or any, are going to stop their practice at its peak based on an incremental (for now) tax increase. But how many students are going to choose medicine under these new rules? Will the same number and quality of doctors be willing to go through all that hard work and high investment working for lower wages for years for only a moderate payoff?

In Britain they are experiencing a shortage of doctors and the quality of doctors is going down.

As to taxes, where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for the stimulus and the massive new federal budget? Are you really that naive?

And taxes are everywhere already. Property taxes, State income taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, taxes on lottery winnings (what a scam; the state gets money from the mathematically challenged and then gets almost half of their winnings back in taxes!) There is an 18 cent Federal tax on every gallon of gasoline you buy, plus whatever State tax which is considerably more. Now the government gets this money and they don't have to do ANYTHING for it but collect. And what are they doing really? Roads Schools military all that yes, but the SEC? The FAA? the FDA? The CIA? The FBI? The IRS? The ATF? The Border patrol? The prison industrial complex? The DEA??? Great stuff all that eh? You like all that stuff? As a leftist you should Also want the government to be starved.

The oil company making "record profits" makes less per gallon of gas than the state in which it is sold, and they have to invest money to drill, refine, store, distribute and retail it!

Cigarette taxes are far higher than what the tobacco company makes as profit. This means the State has more incentive for you to smoke than the actual tobacco company!

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:15:11 +0000

ktward

Ha! Great rhetorical device...reality!

Oh yes. Sweden. I'd go there if they'd let me in. But they won't. They let very few people in. Here in America, we let everyone in, and have been for years. My point? Sweden's vaunted health care entitlements would suffer badly if they had the same open borders immigration policy as we do. If they had to contribute to their own defense, even more problems for their socialism. They are a very small stable country that isn't at all similar to us demographically, so the example is rejected. How about Britain? They have it, they are closer to us than any EU country why not go by their example? Not idyllic enough for ya?

"Duh. Reform is never painless." I bet you say that to all the conservative reforms proposed too. And I'm sure all the Universal Health Care advocates are making us aware of that fact while promoting their cause too...

"Your use of the term 'slavery', given our country's heritage, borders on offensive in present context."

African-Americans don't have a monopoly on the word, bud. Slavery was around before Africans were enslaved and it is around today in various forms and may be around even more in the dystopian future if we are not careful. It was abolished 150 years ago here, that's not "present context" in my view. I know you might like to hang onto that as being vitally important and relevant but it isn't anymore. Not all, in fact, very few slaves were whipped and beaten, but they had free health care and "free" food and lodgings, they just couldn't do anything else but work for their masters. But slavery is slavery whether you are beaten or whether you get to stay in the "house".

And go ahead and be offended. Y'all are professionals at being offended. Slavery, slavery. So there! Be doubly offended, you love to be offended , I'm doing you a favor.

I'm not going to read all your links, but I did read the Mother Jones article. Great Republican mag there!

Partisan drivel.

By: ktward

ktward — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:31:26 +0000

Franco wrote:

"Where should my opinion come from if not philosophy?"

Uhm ... how about Reality?

Case in point: Sweden. Yeah, they're all rebelling against their 'slavery' due to government subsidized social systems.

A good illustration of that argument are the following links. Satire for ratings? Sure. Nevertheless, it serves to highlight the absurdities of the 'Socialist' bogeyman cries of the right:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=The-Stockholm-Syndrome

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=The-Stockholm-Syndrome-Pt.-2

"Its implementation, I am pretty sure, will be a disaster with many, many unintended consequences."

Duh. Reform is never painless. Are you suggesting this is new?

"Medical malpractice reforms would make a huge difference. One law that limits claims and/or make the loser pay - or even to make it fairer - loser pays half, would do wonders."

I would go one step further, like Canada: in terms of all lawsuits, the loser pays the court/attorney fees. In this scenario, we do not need to limit awards.

"And if you raise taxes to the point where you are in effect working for others more than you are working for yourself, you begin the slippery slope to slavery."

Your use of the term 'slavery', given our country's heritage, borders on offensive in present context.

Two points:

1) My taxes have not been raised, they've been lowered. Perhaps you make more than $200k and will, in 2010, go back to Clinton-era tax rates of 39%, a whole 3% more than where you are now. Boo-hoo.

2) This does a good job of illustrating why your alarmist rhetoric lacks substance:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/03/should-we-pity-rich

"I want to do what is right and convince others (not you necessarily) not just do what seems to be popular."

Seems to be popular? How about what is recognized across the ideological spectrum and deemed to be necessary.

Health care reform is not a simple problem, nor will its solution be simple. But I've yet to hear any convincing legitimate argument from you, just old and tired conservative bogeyman talking points.

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:43:12 +0000

ktward

"Universal Health Care? You might want to check up on the latest polls in favor; it has largely ceased to be the bogeyman the Right/Big Business paints it as."

There are facts, and there are perceptions. Citing polls to mean that Universal Health Care will be great mixes the two up. I realize the abstraction that is known as "Universal Health Care" polls very well. Its implementation, I am pretty sure, will be a disaster with many, many unintended consequences. Unlike many on this blog I want to do what is right and convince others (not you necessarily) not just do what seems to be popular.

This is not to say that our health Care system with insurance companies and HMOs is not a big failure in many respects and desperately needs reform. Medical malpractice reforms would make a huge difference. One law that limits claims and/or make the loser pay - or even to make it fairer - loser pays half, would do wonders.

And Big Business WANTS the government to take it over. It is one of their biggest costs! Hello!

"Newsflash: we already work for others. We already work for our society: it's called taxes."

Exactly! That is my point. And if you raise taxes to the point where you are in effect working for others more than you are working for yourself, you begin the slippery slope to slavery.

In Communist/Socialist countries people stop working, or they "hoard", and then the government uses force against them. It is a natural path that each communist country traveled. People become slaves to the State.

"Finding reward in nurturing our own self-interest while supporting the integrity and humaneness of our society are not mutually exclusive ideals as you paint them."

Never said they were mutually exclusive. I believe I said that it is fine for people to get fulfillment out of helping others, but this is not how they live or how most societies are structured, because people won't work for nothing. And at some point, need does not trump your freedom. Because I need help does not mean you should be required to drop your pursuits and come to my aid. Right?

You may wish to work to help your family, or work to save for your retirement, or use your time to volunteer at the food-bank. Millions of people in this country volunteer and donate money to charity including a preponderance of conservatives. But once you can't volunteer but are assigned a cause it becomes something else. (slavery?)

Where should my opinion come from if not philosophy?

By: ktward

ktward — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:11:42 +0000

Franco:

You're correct in that it's indeed a potpourri of regulatory deficiencies that contributed to our economic meltdown: de-regulation, under-regulation, ineffective regulation, and criminally negligent SEC regulators.

An informative blueprint into the Mess:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901

Your dismissal of current polls and opinions on the dire necessity for Health Care reform is, indeed, ridiculous. And, I might add, a sand pile you may wish to pull your head out of. A few informative pieces across the spectrum:

http://progressillinois.com/2009/4/24/il-biz-owner-we-need-public-option

http://progressillinois.com/2009/4/7/doctors-nurses-single-payer

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/03/30/daily51.html?jst=b_ln_hl

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g6m4153528pq2712/fulltext.html

http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=57759

Newsflash: we already work for others. We already work for our society: it's called taxes. Finding reward in nurturing our own self-interest while supporting the integrity and humaneness of our society are not mutually exclusive ideals as you paint them.

You're absolutely correct, in that there are definitive distinctions between self-interest, selfishness and narcissism. But your, uh, 'philosophical' nit-picking in the context of this blog leaves me, still, with the impression that your opinion comes from a very narcissistic place.

The 'pure altruism' argument you inject is old and tired, and well, silly.

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Fri, 01 May 2009 11:38:45 +0000

ktward

There are plenty of regulations on Wall St. - bad ones like Sarbanes-Oxley (which excluded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac incidentally) and many more. The real problem is that these regulations, flawed as they are, went unenforced. The SEC was asleep at the wheel. And Congress ignored plenty of warnings from whistleblowers. Bureaucrats making money doing nothing as well as government corruption. So more "regulation" by itself isn't a panacea.

You cite polls as an example of viability? Ridiculous.

I said:
"Humans act in their self-interest. Trying to structure a society where people work, not for themselves but for others, eventually requires force, since people will not work for others."

You said:
"You're one messed-up dude. Your assertion is probably true of Wall Street mentality, for whatever reasons, but could not be further from the truth for the bulk of the rest of us. I, and millions of others of every political ideology, utterly reject your jaded, narcissistic premise. Nevertheless, yours is indeed an effective argument for effective Wall Street regulation."

Humans don't act in their own interest? You are living in la-la land. And by the way narcissism is different than selfishness, I think that is what you really mean, and self-interest is different than selfishness too.

Trust me, every minute of your life you are operating out of self interest. It's not a bad thing, it just is. Even if you are volunteering at a food-bank you are acting on your self-interest. You are able to help others to make yourself feel better. You are making friends of like-mind and you are getting pleasure out of helping others. And you can tell yourself that you are making a better society for everyone (including, ahem, yourself). Nothing wrong with it.

If you really believe you are acting out of pure altruism, and that people are willing to work for others without reward, come here to my place. I have lots of work for you to do for me.

By: ktward

ktward — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:01:28 +0000

Franco:

You left a lot to wade through, but a couple of thoughts:

"...regulations made it more and more difficult for mom and pop to operate the corner store. They have to comply with so many laws and regulations relating to employees [and] the environment, handicapped entrances and toilets, the list is endless."

Handicapped entrances/toilets are your best examples of overly regulated small business? I mean, off the top of your strongly-opinionated head you don't have something meatier than that? Particularly in light of the disastrous de/under-regulation that has contributed to the economic muck we're currently wading through?

"Once government controls a certain portion of the economy, it becomes 'too big to fail'."

Too late. Under-regulated Wall Street/Banking has beaten the government to it.

"SS is a 53 trillion dollar unfunded mandate....Young people will be overtaxed to pay for old people. Which ultimately will result in a rebellion of sorts, especially if there is Universal Health care in place."

Not really. These 'Old' people you're referring to are our parents. For so many reasons, thank god they have a social safety net. Relax, the rebellion you fear is a non-starter. Universal Health Care? You might want to check up on the latest polls in favor; it has largely ceased to be the bogeyman the Right/Big Business paints it as.

"Humans act in their self-interest. Trying to structure a society where people work, not for themselves but for others, eventually requires force, since people will not work for others."

You're one messed-up dude. Your assertion is probably true of Wall Street mentality, for whatever reasons, but could not be further from the truth for the bulk of the rest of us. I, and millions of others of every political ideology, utterly reject your jaded, narcissistic premise. Nevertheless, yours is indeed an effective argument for effective Wall Street regulation.

With all due respect, you've yet to present a persuasive argument within the context of this blog thread.

The 'purification' and internal partisan and cultural demonization currently underway within the Republican Party leaves it effectively in the cold. Sad but true, the only viable parties at the legislative table are Left Dems and Centrist Dems.

You okay with that?

By: ChristianMiller

ChristianMiller — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:07:36 +0000

danbmil99, I will concede that I don't really know PA politics enough to know whether Toomey can win or not. I do think the political ground will change and the conventional wisdom of today will be out of date by November 2010.Much is changing - and radically changing. predictions today are worthless in this environment.

In any case I stand by my major thrust. Spector is no better than a Democrat on the whole. Let me repeat: On the whole.

And regardless, you can't hector voters into marching in lock step for an empty cause which is what Republicans like Frum want to do. It's like trying to herd cats. People are individuals and they have a right to rebel against Spector or any politician and there is no force that can stop them. The best person to have stopped them would have been Spector himself, right? He has control over how he votes. He made his choice. Spector miscalculated badly, or he is trying to finesse his way through the 2010 election. I do think it was the former. And he miscalculated because he was lulled into complacency by being continually propped up by the Republican party putting up with his betrayals.

And I'm not sure you know what "operation chaos really is by your response.