Brad - thanks for the link. It proves your assertion, and that helps.

bbauska wrote:Given the choice of your two options, I choose 'b'.

In the same way that I view the justice system - I would rather 100 guilty men walk free if it meant not one innocent man was jailed, I have to say that I'd go for 'a' every time.

We will always have cheats and frauds and lazy people. Equally, we will always have people who are through no fault of their own unable to 'compete' with the general population. The latter are more of a concern to me (and we should look to limit the former). I get the impression, over several threads over time, that it's the former who concern you more.

steve

No, numbskull, the point is the President doesn't want us drilling anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico

Thats just plain misinformed. or a big fat lie. ... First the moratorium was only on deep water drilling. And second its come off....

Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, said ,,,,,since the reformed regulations have been implemented in February of last year, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement approved 290 permits for deepwater operations, on top of the 98 shallow water permits the bureau previously approved.
"We will continue to take steps to expand responsible production, and the numbers speak for themselves," Schwartz said.
The report comes as the Department of the Interior announced this week that onshore oil and natural gas lease sales generated about $256 million in revenue for American taxpayers in the last year, a 20 percent increase over the 2010 level.
On Dec. 14, the Department of the Interior also conducted the first new lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico, which generated $712.7 million for the Treasury.

source:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/280387/ ... nation.htm

danivon wrote:Brad - thanks for the link. It proves your assertion, and that helps.

bbauska wrote:Given the choice of your two options, I choose 'b'.

In the same way that I view the justice system - I would rather 100 guilty men walk free if it meant not one innocent man was jailed, I have to say that I'd go for 'a' every time.

We will always have cheats and frauds and lazy people. Equally, we will always have people who are through no fault of their own unable to 'compete' with the general population. The latter are more of a concern to me (and we should look to limit the former). I get the impression, over several threads over time, that it's the former who concern you more.

I am glad we are reaching understanding. Clarity over agreement, is what I prefer.

I believe that the people who are not able to take care of themselves (i.e. your cousin for example), will be taken care by charities, family (I am sure your and your assist admirably), and government lastly, if all else fails.

b
Do you really think it is a good thing that the marginal tax rates have been increasing? When the marginal tax rate is 90% would that be acceptable? Maybe 95%, Perhaps 98%?

It doesn't surprise me that you are unaware that the marginal rates have been decreasing....since 1946.
try looking the history of the marginal rate up on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax ... _top_rates

And it also doesn't surprise me that you seem to think there's a simple solution to a complex problem.
And yes I do agree that you should not have debt now. But that pooch was screwed in the years from 80 to 07. (Once the financial collapse hit, there was no altenrative that could have balanced the budget and kept a depression from setting in...)

But the answer to getting rid of debt is also complex. To reduce the debt from 146% of GDP in 1946 to about 34% in 1980 took 34 years of a mostly expanding economy and a very high (compared to any period after 1980 but especially compared to today) taxation regimen.
To think that the current situation can be turned around in a few years is ludicrous. And it requires more of that magical thinking to suggest that it can be done without all three of the following:
1) an expanding economy
2) reduced spending
3) greater taxation....
The key is #1. Once that is accomplished then fine tuning the balance of 2 and 3 can be accomplished.
And that isn't done by throwing a dart at wall and hitting a magical "fair" number.
The reason Obama is focussed on fairness, is because fairness is a subjective thing. and he understands that more people will agree with his idea of fairness than Romneys. And he thinks that will win him the election. (And neither are going to come up with a magic number either...)

b

I believe that the people who are not able to take care of themselves (i.e. your cousin for example), will be taken care by charities, family (I am sure your and your assist admirably), and government lastly, if all else fails.

Why do you think this became a largely governmental role B.? Because the historical record is that charitable organizations were unable to effectively deal with the problems. All else did fail.

RickyP,
I provided a link to back up my data. I ask that you do the same concerning your assertion that charitable organizations and family does not provide the assistance forcing it to be a largely governmental role. I will find data disproving the statement that it IS a largely governmental role.

Pertaining to your way to reduce the debt. I agree with #1 and #2. Number 3 however, I would ask you to tell me how much is too much. I have asked before, and you choose to not give a number.

Is 100% taxation too much for any person making more than 1 million/year? We can start there and work our way to a number from there.

I think once it is agreed that Christian doctrines require you to help the poor, it does not matter how that is accomplished. Therefore, it is inconsisent for a Christian to favor governmental policies that result in the poor being worse off. I really don't see the distiction between direct charity and indirect support of the poor through government subsidy. Does it matter to the poor the manner in which they are helped?

I am not sure the failure of liberal programs equates with the failure of conservative idelogy. Are Social Security and Medicare failures? And the fact that indiviidual programs do not work is not that big of a deal. But conservatives have pushed for three things: (1) cut tax rates, (2) deregulate, and (3) increase military spending. These policies have failed and have resulted in wealth going towards the top, threatened to collapse our fiancial system, and caused massive deficits. Somehow, liberal policies from the 1930s to 1980 did not cause these problems.

You can find tax rates for 1980 in this link. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html

I would not agree to totaly restoring those tax rates but I think it can be clearly seen that there has been a massive changve in tax policy since 1980. I don't understand the argument that someone deserves his wealth because he earned it. Yes, that person earned it under certain governmental policies and he is paying a low rates of taxes under our current policy. The question is should we continue policies to help a small percentage of our population gain enormous wealth while the bottom 80% is lucky to stay even? Should we continue tax rates that are a fraction of 1980, given that the bottom 80% is struggling so much?

Perhaps, Freeman, you would like to have some other Christian policies in Government? It sounds like you are picking and choosing. Here is a list of some other great "policy changes"

No abortion
No drinking to excess
No drugs
Church attendance

Shall I go on? I think you are just trying to use Christianity to prove a point, and the usage is in the wrong text. It is not the Governments responsibility to be Christian. It is the person's. If you want the Government to be that way, I am all in with you.,

Freeman, thanks, I really appreciate the way you lay out your views and vision. I'm going to stay away from your first paragraph. Here's my response on some of the specifics in the rest of your post:

Are Social Security and Medicare failures?

Maybe. There have certainly been millions of people who have been helped by these programs; there are very few conservatives who want to end them. However, they are the reasons for our massive debt and deficits both recorded and projected. Certainly our inability to reform them in a fiscally prudent way represents a weakness of liberalism.

And the fact that indiviidual programs do not work is not that big of a deal.

Sometimes it is. Social conservatives will tell you that the breakdown of the family is partially attributable to welfare policies that provide money to single women with children, but not married women. I've also read that the inequality to which you refer is more attributable to the breakdown of the family, and less to outsourcing or other reasons suggested by liberals . Housing shortages in NYC are partially attributable to rent control. Food stamps that allow unlimited purchases of any "food" versus the European model of restricting the use of food stamps are part of the reason for our obesity problem. You can spend your entire allowance on potato chips and sugared soda if you like. More people die in the US of obesity than hunger; I believe that extends to the poor. Various welfare programs may deter the work ethic. There are families that have been on the dole for generations and accept that as normal. It also creates resentment for those of us who work everyday. I'm sure that there are many needy people who benefit from these programs, but I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which unintended consequences can undermine the benefits of the program, or at least create more problems than they solve.

But conservatives have pushed for three things: (1) cut tax rates,

I can't speak for other economic conservatives, but in my world view we cut rates but also cut all of the loopholes and other special breaks in the tax code. Our corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world. Obama has proposed new loopholes in his state of the union involving the outsourcing of jobs and the in-sourcing of jobs. Is there any doubt that corporate behemoths such as GE will take advantage of these provisions to prevent paying taxes? Liberals will then rail against these abuses. This is a repeated pattern.

(2) deregulate,

we've had this conversation before. There are a tremendous number of regulations that do not sunset but are not needed. Yes we need good regulations. But most are harmful. California is the most regulated state in the union (and has among the highest tax rates). How is that working for you? In spite of your tremendous advantages you have one of the worse economies in the country.

(3) increase military spending.

No argument from me. I continue to like Obama's foreign policy. The recent shift from ground forces to high tech weaponry is one with which I agree. My concern about voting for Romney is that the additional cost is not worth it to me.

You forgot #4 which is cut domestic spending. I think that is the cornerstone of conservatism.

Somehow, liberal policies from the 1930s to 1980 did not cause these problems.

I lived through the 70's. It was a disaster. The general liberal view was that we would have high unemployment and high inflation for the rest of our lives.

I don't understand the argument that someone deserves his wealth because he earned it.

That's amazing to me.

Should we continue tax rates that are a fraction of 1980, given that the bottom 80% is struggling so much?

On a percentage basis, income tax rates for the bottom 80% have declined more than income tax rates for the top 20%. I think we've all agreed to that factoid already. The bottom 50% in the US do not pay income taxes at all. Yes, tax rates for the wealthy have declined, but not by as much as tax rates for the lower 50%.

Now, at this point you will argue total tax burden including FICA. But that's encompasses social security and medicare for which you've just voiced your support.

bbauska wrote:I believe that the people who are not able to take care of themselves (i.e. your cousin for example), will be taken care by charities, family (I am sure your and your assist admirably), and government lastly, if all else fails.

Umm, the bolded part is option 'a'.

freeman

Does it matter to the poor the manner in which they are helped?

When you consider that social programs intended to ensure that the indigent can live a dignified life at a minimal level, and that they have a right to that support.... perhaps its more dignified than lining up for a handout at the local church.
That the poor don't need to line up with their begging bowls crying for alms I'm sure they appreciate.

bbauska

I ask that you do the same concerning your assertion that charitable organizations and family does not provide the assistance forcing it to be a largely governmental role

How far back do I need to go? How about lets start only 150 years ago in the US with the establishment of Poor Houses. They became necessary becasue there were more paupers (so they were called) then there was assistance from the church or relatives...
Before Poor Houses, here's the typical solution: Indentured slavery:

Auctioning off the Poor: People who could not support themselves (and their families) were put up for bid at public auction. In an unusual type of auction, the pauper was sold to the lowest bidder (the person who would agree to provide room and board for the lowest price) -- usually this was for a specific period of a. year or so. The person who got the contract got the use of the labor of the pauper for free in return for feeding, clothing, housing and providing health care for the pauper and his/her family. This was actually a form of indentured servitude. It sounds a lot like slavery -- except that it was technically not for the pauper's entire lifetime. And it had many of the perils of slavery. The welfare of the paupers depended almost entirely upon the kindness and fairness of the bidder. If he was motivated only by a desire to make the maximum profit off the "use" of the pauper, then concern for "the bottom line" might result in the pauper being denied adequate food, or safe and comfortable shelter, or even necessary medical treatment. And there often was very little recourse for protection against abuse.
Sounds a lot like Gingriches policies about hiring kids as janitors no? Gingrich, a man of the 19th century, planning to colonize the moon.

http://www.poorhousestory.com/history.htm

You've made the claim that charity was enough. Please provide substantiation for this ...
If it was, why did Poor Houses need to be created? They were a reaction to a situation which overwhelmed the charitable institutions.
Therre has never been sufficient charity to deal with all the effects of poverty.... Certainly not the kind that can be relied uopon for long term remediation.
Generally it has been social programs like public health, education, and public infrastructure that have alleviated much poverty. Levels of poverty in palces like Sweden and Finland... are in the low single integers... Incumbent with that, perhaps for reasons not just to do withlimited poverty but certainly a part of that issues like crime and public health problems are also inconsequential. (comparatively)

ray

Maybe. There have certainly been millions of people who have been helped by these programs; there are very few conservatives who want to end them. However, they are the reasons for our massive debt and deficits both recorded and projected. Certainly our inability to reform them in a fiscally prudent way represents a weakness of liberalism.

I agree with a lot of your posting but this is nonsense.
The fact that successful programs are contributing to incrasing debt isn't the programs fault. The programs have done what was intended, they've saved millions from living their old age in denigration and misery. Funding them properly is a different issue.
Its largely the irresponsibilty that started with Reagan's deficits. The programs would be in fine shape if people were willing to pay the appropriate level of taxation to support them. Before 1980, it was politcal suicide to run deficits in the US. After Reagan if became acceptable and politiicans OF BOTH STRIPES, refused to deal with the cold hard facts that deficits had to be dealt with....
Its been pandering to a populace to tell them that you can always lower taxation without pain that has actually caused the debt calamity.
And thats been largely propogated by Conservative politicians since 1980, though the left went along. Its hilarious how conservatives all harken back to Saint Ron without comprehending that its his attitudes to fiscal responsibility that started the snow ball to hell.
(Thats not to say that there are inefficiencies within programs that could be corrected. Mostly over administration and needless worry over fraud. And who's responsible for that over focus?)

b

Freeman, you would like to have some other Christian policies in Government?

Charity is not an exclusively Christian concept. Most major religions and humanism all require adherenets to be charitable. In fact the Islamic admonitions to charitable acts are much more specific and honerous.

rickyp wrote:b

Freeman, you would like to have some other Christian policies in Government?

Charity is not an exclusively Christian concept. Most major religions and humanism all require adherenets to be charitable. In fact the Islamic admonitions to charitable acts are much more specific and honerous.

Freeman brought up the fact the charity should be in the government because it is a "Christian" attribute. I wanted to bring his attention to other "Christian" attributes and beliefs that could be in government, if he wanted Christianity in it's entirety. I felt he was picking and choosing. Quite hypocritical.

RickyP,
The link you gave was from 150 years ago? Really? Do you think that is applicable? Don't make me laugh... At least me link was from last year.
No answer on how much is too much? I guess your silence is agreement with my assertion that you believe 100% taxation is the right amount. So you believe all of any person's money belongs tot he government. I see your values showing.

Brad, ricky's link was about the historical evidence for gaps in the family/charity cover that were not merely minor but affected large numbers of people. Now maybe we would be more charitable today, but doesn't that undercut one of the consistent lines against state assistance, that it 'crowds out' the voluntary sector.