Suffer the children
From Chris' keyboard to your eyes
The private sector cannot maintain a safety net. For-profit companies have no interest. Non-profits have no money. It is our government that must take care of people who desperately need help, who show up at free clinics and homeless shelters. No other institution can do it.
Things would be much worse if lawmakers had listened to demands to resist any tax increases and only slashed and burned to address the state budget crisis. That’s little solace to the people now being turned away when they seek help. But at the very least, their pain ought to be enough to dismiss the ludicrous claims of those traveling around the state telling people that taxes did not have to be raised. The truth is they were not raised enough to prevent the suffering that is our shame.
Go read the rest. It's a sad, sad commentary.







Sad commentary indeed
http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg
So frustrating to see such a sincere empathy for other people get wrapped up in horrendous logic.
----------------------
"The natural wage of labor is its product." -- Benjamin R. Tucker
A liberal is someone who thinks the system is broken and needs to be fixed, whereas a radical understands it’s working the way it’s supposed to.
No longer frustrating to see your continuing failure of logic
...merely expected daily disappointment.
So a penny less in sales tax would've helped the lady in Haywood County?
She needs health care, not just a penny off on a band-aid (or three cents off Advil).
But since I'm fortunate enough in life to be buying a new car, I'm enjoying a tax credit this year, courtesy of federal ARRA, that will deduct NC's already super low 3% sales tax on new cars from my taxable income next year. And I don't even have to itemize to get it!
It's a damn shame anti-tax idiots care more about helping me than helping her.
Wait a minute
Why are you out buying a new car when that lady needs healthcare? The article makes it pretty clear that there are a lot of great non-violent non-profit organizations that could use your help this year. Seems pretty hypocritical for you to insist that the state take more money from the rest of us by force (through one of the most regressive tax mechanisms, no less) to give money to causes that aren't even as important to you as buying a new car.
I'm sure some of them do care more about their own social strata than the poor. A lot of them probably voted for Bush.
But where are the progressives on this issue? Where are the people on the left calling for an end most/all taxes and economic regulation of the poor?
The reason I know that left/progressives haven't done their homework on poverty is that none of them devote even an ounce of energy questioning let along challenging the role of our corrupt and monopolized monetary system that has systematically stripped wage-earners and savers of their wealth in what amounts to the most regressive form of taxation in modern America: inflation.
Why? Because an in depth look at our monetary system forces one to come face to face with the truth about the relationship between economics and government. The free market is what creates wealth and prosperity - government controls create crony capitalism and an artificially distorted distribution of wealth in favor of those who control the state (who have always been and who will always be the wealthy special interests).
----------------------
"The natural wage of labor is its product." -- Benjamin R. Tucker
A liberal is someone who thinks the system is broken and needs to be fixed, whereas a radical understands it’s working the way it’s supposed to.
The theorist who can't see theory
Who said I'm actually buying a car?
Can't I argue empirical examples of actual laws passed and tax rates instituted rather than ramble on with absurd theory?
But if you insist...
Even those crazy liberal unquestioning progressive professional economists at Wells Fargo (not Wachovia) Securities are having a conference call today at 2pm Eastern detailing how DEflation is the problem of the short and near term.
Give 'em a call. I'm sure they'll give you a free call-in number.
Still, if you want to stack gold. Be my guest. Commodities don't just include metals. You can eat wheat, not silver.
But I'm rambling in theory....
My "reactionary" response
You did.
A kindergardner can cite facts. Yes, focusing tax cuts on products that wealthier people purchase rather than cutting taxes for the people who are least able to afford them is disgusting. I've already stated that and more, yet I'm called a "reactionary". Sorry, but you don't have the progressive credentials to call anyone a "reactionary" on the economic front, because you are apparently in complete denial of the regressive effect of inflation. What kind of a progressive (or anyone who wants an honest assessment of what is going on) takes for granted the opinion of some corporate shysters, as if they have any incentive to give a rats ass about the effects of monetary policy on anyone but themselves?
Yea, deflation is the problem for the fat-cat asset holders. That's why they favor inflationary "easy credit" policies that cause their investment prices to soar and allow them to ride the wave of malinvestment and speculation. It's just too bad that this is the same policy that induces millions of middle class people to take on unrealistic debt loads. It's too bad that it's the same policy that ruins frugal wage-earning savers along with people on fixed incomes, and forces people to invest in more risky assets just to tread water. It's too bad that this is the policy that is primarily responsible for the current crisis. It's too bad that world history is replete with examples of governments and their central-banking partners debasing the currency for the benefit of the ruling class, and yet the left could care less (with a couple exceptions).
So it's no surprise that the industry hacks are concerned about deflation - they see themselves, and their assets, as the center of the economic solar system when in fact they are the parasites. Neither is it surprising that you would cite the financiers of corporate America to defend inflationism.
The financial sector is generally more aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans - just look at the top corporate donors to the Obama campaign and congressional Dems. The money trust was never "busted" by the progressive movement. Instead the banking fraternity traded some marginal control to the political establishment in exchange for monopoly control of the monetary system and a permanent seat at the table.
Why skip over the option of being morally driven to prefer voluntarily supporting non-profit healthcare?
I agree with you that tax breaks for the rich instead of the poor is a reflection of a very poor set of values held by those who control public policy. It's wrong for them to impose that set of values on others.
Can you acknowledge that other people might disagree with your priorities? Maybe some people don't share your priorities, and would rather see money go elsewhere. Perhaps they would rather have some more of their own money in their pocket to purchase some sort of preventative health care, or additional tutoring for their children. Should they have the right to force you to pay for their priorities? What if they are extremely religious and want you to fund some Bible-based 'moral' education? What if they want to pay for some sort of alternative medicine that you are skeptical of?
Do you like the idea of other people forcing their values and priorities on you? It's the golden rule.
Well that pretty much answers that! Just for the record, I don't want to spend your money for you, control your life or tell you what to do under threat of force. All I ask is that you return the favor. I realize I'm asking a lot, but you never know....
----------------------
"The natural wage of labor is its product." -- Benjamin R. Tucker
A liberal is someone who thinks the system is broken and needs to be fixed, whereas a radical understands it’s working the way it’s supposed to.
You did?
Not that I agree completely with Dr. Quigley, but he does raise an interesting question. It's apparent that you'd rather use YOUR money to buy a new car and use other people's money to buy this lady some health care. I have great respect for folks like Buffet and Gates who voluntarily donate a significant sum of their wealth to improving the lives of those less fortunate. It seems that most are willing to donate other peoples money instead of just stepping up to the plate. While that may not be the point Quigley is trying to make, I think it's one that is worth discussing.
-----
As for taxing... Personally, I think the lower you make taxes the more folks will demand from the government. Simple supply and demand. The lower the price for a good/service, the higher the demand. In this case, the lower the taxes (the price of government) the higher the demand. We are definitely saw the demand for government fall after GH Bush and Clinton's tax hikes and we've definitely see the demand increase after Shrub's tax cuts...after all at no point in our history has government spending been higher than it is now, and folks want to spend even more! $23 trillion in debt in 2019. Great God! I certainly hope we don't experience any significant deflation or we are really screwed.
This post has become an interesting case study
...in how reactionaries attack would-be progressives when said progressive seems to act as reactionaries wish.
(Let's assume PackMan97 didn't read my previoulsy posted reply to DQ)
I opine that I'm buying a car with my own money. I'm taking advatage of tax breaks in so doing.
Yet, I'm also implying that NC should have the same sales tax rate it has on new cars that it does for band-aids. That rate could be 3% for both with a broader tax base, or 7.75% with our existing tax code, but that's for later -- and hopefully the state legislature will take notice.
So, I'm spending my own money on a car (paying money for a good/service).
I also posit that we should be morally driven to prefer being taxed more to provide a health care (paying money for a good/service), than giving tax breaks to those that can afford new cars.
I'm attacked for both from a reactionary point of view.
This is just fascinating.
Neither action is acceptable to reactionaries.
Here endeth the lesson:
Don't negotiate with them. Govern.
"Progressive" as a definition
I believe I am a "moderate" and there is a definition to that term and philosophy, of course.
Here is what is commonly known as a "progressive":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
So, how many people really are "progressive" and just how many people are "moderate"? It is a legitimate question especially today with the issue of health care on the table.
More fun with wiki
Reactionary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
Since conservative has lost all meaning.
Former NC House Speaker Liston Ramsey, who is largely spun about today as a type of totalitarian good ol' boy overlord -- mostly by those who never knew him or how his actions differed from those before him. But most in today's political world would likely label Ramsey's stands as populist or even (gasp!) liberal, although certainly from a mountain strain of populism as he was from Madison County.
He was fond of saying of those striding about Jones Street declaring their label of conservatism in the Reagan-drenched 1980s, "So what are you trying to conserve?"
Ramsey was so right.
Back to the wiki entry:
Enjoy the part about the "Ultras" royalists wanting a return to the House of Bourbon dynasty, but even the King and his gold wasn't a "return to tradition" enough for those reactionaries. They turned on him too.
Well written
Now, back to my question: How many people see themselves as "progressive", and how many see themselves as "moderate". It's a fair question.
Thanks.