[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL Ben C comment on reply...

[David Bradley]

Ed, et al., a question for you.  What do you call it today when we
have a progressive tax rate?  Are we living in a Socialist system
already, by your definition?

I participate in a transfer of weatlh 24 times a year with every
paycheck.  Each year I look at a summary of a large payment to the US
government for services rendered to me and others.  I don't begrudge
any of it other than the parts that go to inefficient programs and a
war we shouldn't be in (but that's a different debate, please).  I
don't believe we will live long enough to see a world without war or
inefficient programs, but I think there can be proress.  I believe the
government has to play a role in determing the use of those funds,
because voluntary giving by individuals will not address major needs
in our country.

When the Federal tax rate went down a couple of (few?) points, it had
no impact on my investment or consumption patterns.  I don't believe a
change in the tax rate upward by a couple (or few?) percentage points
will change my investment or consumption patterns anywhere near as
much as, say, not being able to rent my house in CT will.  Most if not
all of the people I know (which actually represents a cross section of
left-to-right) feel the same way.  Some are less inclined to give back
the tax cut, but this is not top of anyone's list of concerns and no
one in our extended circle views it as a shift to a Socialistic form
of government.

I do not view a marginal shift in the progressive tax rates as
Socialist, never mind Marxist.  I don't believe there has been any
discussion of the government rescinding private ownership of anything.

I think a majority of people share in this opinion, or one close to
it.  We live in a 50/50 society which right now may be more like a
55/45 split.  You seem to live in a 90/10 world of extreme opinions
and rhetoric.

Dave



On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Ben:
>
> Thank you for your reply
>
> Ben said, "The problem I have is that I don't carry the same suspicion of
> the MSM as you and some others do.  I think back to Woodard and Bernstein
> and Watergate and I conclude that any reporter who could "nail" Obama with a
> credible story of the kind of involvement with Ayres which would be
> significant would win a Pulitzer, be the toast of the town, get all the
> great women, and be a multi-millionaire forever. Who could resist that?
>
> The aspects that I look here are recent track record for finding all the
> truth.  Where are those investigative reporters like Woodward and Bernstein
> looking?  I do not see most of the MSM looking and analyzing Obama's
> philosophy in terms of what it means in 'economics'.  In fact I do not
> believe 90 % of the reporters understand economics, economic history,
> American history, etc.
>
> Why do I make that statement?  I make it because I am a product of the same
> education system that they are.  Most teachers in public schools, private
> schools and on to the college level do not study no less understand
> economics and economic history.
>
> If the reporters do not understand what they are looking at, why expect them
> to ask questions that distinguish the nuts and bolts of what makes the
> traditional American system work?  How can a search for truth be expected
> even if they want a Pulitzer Prize if they do not understand the traditional
> economic
> system.[see:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100208.php3]
>
> Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams are two who currently write well about
> economics.  George Soros also writes about a narrow field of economics.
> Soros is a lucid writer but has developed his opinions, theories, views from
> his experience in a narrow sophisticated area and tries to apply them to the
> whole world and America.  [see:
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102108.php3 ]
>
> I like Soros's concepts of openness and democracy.  I have a problem of his
> acceptance of socialist means or government compulsion as the best
> solutions.
>
> What I am saying is that Obama says he wants change.  The problem I have is
> that most of the change he espouses is based on Socialist concepts that have
> been failed concepts during the 20th century.
>
> You have suggested in the past that you would like to get rid of the whole
> bunch in Washington.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  But, I ask what
> change are we going to put in place?  Who are the people that are going to
> make that change?  Obama has not demonstated more integrity, rather he has
> walked with devils.
>
> I cannot agree that changing to a socialist system or socialist programs are
> a real solution based on those concepts and programs track record.  Those
> systems have not been the economic systems that have made America the place
> it is today, nor are they the economic systems that have made the world a
> better place.
>
> I recognize two social and economic systems that have made a difference.
> First, Democracy that keeps dictatorships in check and, second, individual
> initiative exercised thru free enterprise.
>
> I see Obama's ideas as ultimately placing excessive tax burdens on free
> enterprise.  I see the upcoming supermajority as the road to serfdom.  I see
> Obama as an evangelist type person, that is giving a persuasive sermon and
> when he leaves the tent living a different life style.
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> Addendum:  "Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority
> and character increase as the importance of the position increases."   John
> Adams
> {I am sure you can and will nit pik this post}
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>
>> Ed;
>>
>> You have raised two legitimate questions for me to wrestle with so let me
>> give it a shot.  As I understand it you want to know what I think on the
>> issue of whether Sen Obama is using "deception or evasion about his prior
>> economic and politcal concepts".  As a corollary to that, you posit that
>> if he is being deceptive or evasive does that disqualify him on honesty
>> and integrity grounds from being entitled to our vote.
>>
>> I don't think I have ever suggested that inquiry into the Senator's past
>> associations is improper.  The problem I have is that I don't carry the
>> same suspicion of the MSM as you and some others do.  I think back to
>> Woodard and Bernstein and Watergate and I conclude that any reporter who
>> could "nail" Obama with a credible story of the kind of involvement with
>> Ayres which would be significant would win a Pulitzer,
>> be the toast of the town, get all the great women, and be a
>> multi-millionaire forever. Who could resist that?
>>
>> There is plenty of rumor, innuendo, and conspiratorial stuff out there,
>> but I don't see persuasive proof.  I think Colin Powell, as a former
>> National Security Advisor probably has sources better than ours which
>> would steer him away from this endorsement if there were anything to worry
>> about.  Powell is old, rich, respected.  He has lived his life.  All he
>> has is his legacy.  I can't believe a man like him or the other prominent
>> Americans who have vouched for Obama's patriotism would or could be
>> mislead.
>>
>> Look, there are lots of reasons to vote for John McCain.  If his policies
>> are closer to yours that's just fine.  I just think it would be a shame to
>> reject Obama solely because, what?, he hasn't made a full enough
>> disclosure of , what?, some plot to turn us into welfare state zombies?
>>
>> I don't see the persuasive, proof, the weight of the evidence that we have
>> anything to worry about.
>>
>> On your second point, if he lied about something important, then I won't
>> vote for him.
>>
>> Ben C.
>>
>> Tootle wrote:
>>>
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>> Start from the top.  I did not call you a Marxist.  The 'he' was
>>> referring to Obama, if you go back and read the whole paragraph.
>>> Furthermore, I do not know if Obama is a Marxist.  But he fails to
>>> distinguish himself from them so that a dummy can tell whether he is or
>>> is not.
>>>
>>> I agree that that association alone does not make him a Marxist.
>>> However, his stated political philosophy one ago year ago was parallel to
>>> Marxist style thinking, also know as Socialist thinking.  That is, his
>>> taxing proposals intimate a Marxist style or Socialist style thinking.
>>> Specifically, tax the hell out of those earning a high income and spread
>>> the wealth.  Or were his words, share the wealth?
>>>
>>> I have a problem with this concept for several reasons.  First, it takes
>>> property in the form of money from one group and gives it to another
>>> group.  What ever the reason, it is using the huge coercive power of the
>>> government to take property from one group and give it to another.  Now
>>> all kinds of social reasons can be given for doing this.  Bob Skinner is
>>> good at explaining some of them.
>>>
>>> However, another reason I recognize it as a problem is that that kind of
>>> transfer of wealth kills or severely harms individual initiative.   I
>>> recognize that it is people, both ordinary and extra ordinary that thru
>>> personal effort, also called initiative, has made great strides in
>>> raising the standard of living or wellbeing of all people.
>>>
>>> My question to you is still to discuss if Obama is using deception or
>>> evasion about his prior economic and political concepts?
>>>
>>> You are one guy who should be able to discuss that issue from all sides.
>>> Understand to some it is an honesty or integrity question.
>>>
>>> Please take your time to do so, and Thank You.
>>>
>>> Ed K
>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>> (Sorry Andrew no attachment)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Ben-C.%2C-thank-you-for-your-reply...-tp20095304p20110156.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>



-- 
David Bradley
+1.206.234.3977
dwbrad at gmail.com