Fox News "guest" on today's Neil Cavuto show.

People ignore my posts because they don't like to argue wtih levelheaded people who see both sides of the issue while employing facts, logic, and reasoning to construct an argument.

UnknowItAll wrote:

Reallocating capital from those who have earned it to those who have not is IMMORAL.

Thank God we have people like you for moral leaders in this world. All that stuff that Jesus said about rich people having as much of a chance to get to heaven as a camel getting through the eye of a needle - saying that if you treat the poor well than you have treated him well. You're right all that stuff is immoral.

Admit that I haven't read the thread - just the last few posts. But... it sounds like we have a preference towards socialism. Is that what we want? Do we think forced redistribution of wealth will fix the issues?

Look brawn, again, you have some very good points, but paying a "premium" for services is a ruse. Speaking of "facts," The wealthiest 20% of Americans already pay some 80+% of the taxes. The wealthiest 1% pay 50%, and that's after utilizing their tax-sheltering accountants and lawyers. In fact, the top quintile of taxpayers in this country is the only group whose EFFECTIVE tax rate actually increased last year. Every other group went down. How much more are we going to "soak the rich" before we start questioning whether or not the "tax problem" isn't really a problem of inefficient speding by the government, present administration most definitely included?

The public education example you cite is a perfect case in point. The government is throwing more and more $$$ at the "problem," but not getting results. The teaching union is firmly entrenched, so there is no real incentive for the free market, productivity-enhancing principles to get implemented.

Look, I am not "wealthy," but I hope to be someday, where I can start my own business, employ other hard working Americans, and be even more charitable. I can make much better investable decisions than the government. Lower taxes fuel the economic engine, which benefits the greatest number of people. Bush gets criticized for his tax cuts, and many feel they will never be recovered, but the long-term job-creating, productivity-enhancing attributes of supply-side cuts is a metric that can never be fully, authentically measured.

Despite what people like Keith Stone would have you believe (he most have been laid off by Ford or GM), America is richer ON AVERAGE than it's ever been, even your poorest folk that aren't homeless can afford a flat screen and a tivo if that is how they prioritize, and, while wage growth has been relatively flat in real terms, wages and benefits, which is a much truer measure, has very much outpaced inflation.

Nope, it's a very dynamic economy, but one needs to place him/herself in a position to benefit. One of the reasons that job creation hasn't been even stronger is because there are simply not enough EMPLOYABLE workers at that higher education level necessary to fill those rolls, another metric that always gets omitted by the media. Revenues coming into government coffers are twice what was originally anticipated, the stock market is at an all-time high, more poeple than ever own their homes (despite all the talk of sub-prime defaults), the asset-side of the ledger is bigger than ever PER CAPITA. All in all, not a bad situation.

Democrats and Republicans don't differ on morality as much as people believe. Republicans certainly don't lack compassion. They simply think there is a much better way of doing things than reallocating tax levies. Lower taxes benefit EVERYBODY in the long run.

Neb wrote:

Thank God we have people like you for moral leaders in this world. All that stuff that Jesus said about rich people having as much of a chance to get to heaven as a camel getting through the eye of a needle - saying that if you treat the poor well than you have treated him well. You're right all that stuff is immoral.

This is exactly what I'm saying and where you are misunderstanding the authentic intentions of MOST conservatives. Treating the poor well does not mean giving blanket handouts. Where the conservatives differ from liberals is that they believe empowerment and accountability is a much more effective method of lifting the poor out of poverty. Teach a man to fish if you will. You are simply smearing the issue with your overgeneralizations.

FREELY giving needy people money is doing them NO favors. We have a guy at our church who has developed a reputation of being a user, because he is always looking for a handout, gives very little of his time, and does nothing to improve his situation. But he's got keen marketing skills, that's for sure. To bad he doesn't put them to productive use.

I was replying to someone on the first page - so yes I've read from the beginning.

I think the best system is probably a mixture of socialism and capitalism - such as what most western countries currently have. I do think that it potentially catastrophic for a society to have too much of a split between the rich and poor - and the government should be involved (unless you'd rather see it get to the point where we have a real honest class war).

I also don't understand why conservatives, who claim that liberals are "Godless" so often fight for policies that are completely contradictory with the teachings of Jesus. They want prayer in the schools - but they don't want to implement his teachings.

Neb wrote:

They want prayer in the schools - but they don't want to implement his teachings.

Again, totally false, on both accounts actually. Only stout evangelists want prayer in school. And we simply have different perceptions about how to implement his teachings.

I don't remember Jesus asking for any IOU's or needing "accountability" when he fed the multitudes.

Here's a study you might find interesting - "Children in low-tax states are more likely to suffer from insufficient prenatal care, early death, child abuse and imprisonment than those living in states that collect more taxes."

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/22/AM200702228.html

Higher taxes lead to more services - which really do pay off in the long run.

Looks like you guys have both have your hands full, so maybe I'll bow out. I'm not interested in how people label themselves (or how others may label them). I think there's a good chance that all three of us may actually want the same results (at least in some regards).

My questions would be:

Do we think that redistribution already implemented may have contributed to splitting between rich and poor? (ie, Do the rich feel that the government is not allocating as they would like (and maybe unappreciated), and at the same time, the poor do not feel that any singular specific person is giving for their well-being). If so would this encourage people to be more or less philanthropic? Would people on the receiving end feel more or less that they owe it to someone to do what they can to bring themselves out of their situation and maybe even help someone else?

Assuming we've moved towards socialism already and there already is a divide, what would be the best direction now to reach the end state we want where people have their basic needs taken care of and beyond that people are rewarded according to how the benefit society?

Unknow, do you really think the "rich" would be charitable enough on their own to do what needs to be done? If not, how do you propose they get prepared?

While I think the school-prayer example is interesting, I think it would be a better parallel if the "conservatives" were asking that prayer be done at these specific times, in certain specific ways, and for certain things. But, I think they would like to be allowed to pray as they see fit, so, ironically, perhaps it isn't ironic that they would like to give as they see fit, too. I do see how you would see hypocrisy in conservatives (if "Christ-likeness" is their goal), but I am not sure how your proposed forced consistency with Jesus would work. I am not sure that Jesus himself ever forced people to follow his teachings even though I am pretty sure h(H)e thought that doing so was a good idea.

"The wealthiest 20% of Americans already pay some 80+% of the taxes. The wealthiest 1% pay 50%, and that's after utilizing their tax-sheltering accountants and lawyers. In fact, the top quintile of taxpayers in this country is the only group whose EFFECTIVE tax rate actually increased last year. Every other group went down. How much more are we going to "soak the rich" before we start questioning whether or not the "tax problem" isn't really a problem of inefficient speding by the government, present administration most definitely included?"

I'm not sure I agree with all your statistics - the latest I've seen is that the wealthiest 1% pay 37% of all taxes. No matter which number is correct, you should take into consideration the huge differences in income when we are talking about these populations. The top 1% make at least $380,000 per year - the bottom 50% make less than $30,000 per year. How much wiggle room is there to increase taxes on someone only making $30,000 per year?

Neb wrote:

I don't remember Jesus asking for any IOU's or needing "accountability" when he fed the multitudes.

Here's a study you might find interesting - "Children in low-tax states are more likely to suffer from insufficient prenatal care, early death, child abuse and imprisonment than those living in states that collect more taxes."

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/22/AM200702228.html

Higher taxes lead to more services - which really do pay off in the long run.

Services pay off if they are implemented correctly. Sure the government pays out social security, nevermind the fact that it's a poorly managed ponzi scheme (the likes of which would land you in jail if it were done outside of the government) that gives a NEGATIVE real return that could be be much higher under a private sector fiduciary commitment.

The POINT is that the wealthy DO give to the poor. I'm pretty sure (and I am not wealthy) that after you consider my federal bracket, state liabilities, property taxes, payroll tax, medicare tax, over 10% tithe to my church and other activities, sales tax, gasoline tax, and other various governmental obligations, that more than two-thirds of my income is being eaten up. The tax burden in Jesus' era was not nearly what it is today now was it? Perhaps that's why people could meet the full tithe.

And what is the benefit for me? Surely I will not put my kids in a mismanaged, frivolous public school, for which I will paying yet another tax over and above the one I get for no services in return. Nevermind the fact that I get no credit for the exorbitant medical bills that I have incurred. Forget the fact that my mother in law turns to us for assistance because no one else can provide it. Forget about the fact that I have a sister who used to collect disability from the government while working a job under the table, which effectively put her HOURLY wage at about the same as mine, though I worked about four or five times as much.

And seriously, you are not about to start educating me on the economy are you? Seriously?

You know what Unknowitall, I don't think there is any use in us arguing with each other, because we are both clearly intelligent people who simply have firm beliefs. I can't imagine I single stat/argument I could make that would change your mind and I couldn't see you coming up with anything to change my mind. It is refreshing to have discourse with someone who can understand that there are multiple valid viewpoints.

Good luck getting wealthy, I'm well on my way, but working long hours sucks, even though there are plenty of times I just spend waiting for email. It is too bad we have losers like Keith Stone and whoever your conservative equiv of that is.

Uh, sorry, but the thread topic was US response to a domestic nuke strike, not which side of the political aisle is the more loathesome.

Geez.

That's a good point about not requiring IOU's or accountability. That said, that onus is on all of us. And, just my opinion, but if you use Jesus as your standard... well, good luck! I'm not saying it's a bad thing to shoot for.

By the way, NEB, in case I do not seem balanced (because I do lean in favor of a free-market capitalist structure, but no need to label me "conservative" or "liberal"), I have a great friend who I respect a lot who holds views very similar to yours. I don't for a second think that these are simple issues (otherwise, they'd never be debated!).

"And seriously, you are not about to start educating me on the economy are you? Seriously?"

Sorry - I forgot you're the unknow it all.

So - wouldn't it be nice if there were more benefits for your mother-in-law?

I have no idea what the tax burden was in Jesus' time, but here tax collectors and sinners are put in the same category: While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

First of all there are benefits to society that have a indirect effect on your life even if you don't use them directly. Education being one of them.

Stone Keith wrote:

You, sir, are no economist, that's for sure.

"Mathematics brought rigor to Economics. Unfortunately, it also brought mortis."

So, I'll assume being no economist is a good thing.

See where you're coming from, but I can tell you that it's hard for people to listen to someone who talks about the diffiulties of how much they're fortunate to be able to provide and whose last sentence essentially says "I can't learn from you". I bet Neb and Brawn would be cool to run with.

Neb wrote:

"And seriously, you are not about to start educating me on the economy are you? Seriously?"

So - wouldn't it be nice if there were more benefits for your mother-in-law?

First of all there are benefits to society that have a indirect effect on your life even if you don't use them directly. Education being one of them.

Look Neb, I apologize for the unnecessary condescension, but you and your cohorts come off as holier-than-thou experts on these issues, when I simply feel that you are fairly economically illiterate. My mother-in-law has plenty of benefits, and that is precisely the point. She thinks just like you, has no incentive to improve her situation of her own accord, and never has. She feels she is entitled to more. And yes, there are indirect benefits like education, but that is NOT the point. The point is that they could be direct benefits if the government wasn't the standard of implementation.

Brawn is ultimately right. We are not going to change each other's opinions, but you might be curious to know that I used to be a stauch liberal. That's back when I was suffering, of course, and what I perceive to be economically illiterate. Take that anyway you'd like, but having been on both sides of the aisle, I believe the conservative fiscal side bears more fruit in the long run for the greatest number of people on average. I have some direct experience. I came through the system without utilizing the system, other than free market loans that is. This is not to say that the liberal side bears no fruit at all. It's just simply not the fullest tree in the orchard.

(staunch)