Taxes and Candidates?

[DGTess]

Whatever the real numbers are, YES taxes will need to increase in order to level the playing field (including "middle class Americans" who had more income than wealth and are struggling in this recession) and invest in social programs.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there are many of us out here in American who don't believe this is a good thing. Because people are created equal does not mean they do with their lives and assets what they could. If they don't end up equal at the middle or the end of their lives, it's not the government's place to play Robin Hood.

To me, this statement spells socialism, and I want no part of it. Would I be helped by it? Probably. But it feels dishonest.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there are many of us out here in American who don't believe this is a good thing. Because people are created equal does not mean they do with their lives and assets what they could. If they don't end up equal at the middle or the end of their lives, it's not the government's place to play Robin Hood.

To me, this statement spells socialism, and I want no part of it. Would I be helped by it? Probably. But it feels dishonest.

Differing opinions aside, only clueless and socially irresponsible Americans feel this way. People who see capitalism as some self-selection, survival-of-the-fittest giant have completely missed the boat. Safety nets have existed for generations but they were never protested because they benefited a certain segment of the population.

This isn't enough of a redistribution of wealth to be socialism. The goal of these particular tax programs is not to erase the "haves" and "have nots." The goal is not to make the rich and the poor equal so that no one can truly see the fruits of their labor. Higher taxes, even those that tax the rich more, will not level the playing field in that manner.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Differing opinions aside, only clueless and socially irresponsible Americans feel this way. Safety nets have existed for generations but they were never protested because they benefited a certain segment of the population.

This isn't enough of a redistribution of wealth to be socialism.

Which part are you responding to, her first statement, or her comparison to socialism? Because, I agree that comparing "leveling the playing field" to socialism is going overboard.

However, if her first point (if I'm reading it correctly) means that the government can't be everything to everybody, then I'll agree with that.

And I'm fairly well-read on government aid programs and the legislative process as a whole, so I don't consider myself clueless about it, although you may disagree. I'll agree that the vast majority of the U.S. doesn't get it, and argues from a purely personal view (how will this affect my taxes, how will it affect my daily life, etc.)

Also, I disagree that safety nets "were never protested," because I think most every type of safety net, (such as college loan programs, benefits to corporations, lower mortgage rates for those with children, etc.) have been debated and protested over the years.

I think there's misunderstandings on both sides; fiscal conservatives who ignore the safety nets in place for corporations and those with high wealth, and those who want to throw money at social aid programs with no understanding of how they'll get paid for (the old "give money to everyone but don't raise my taxes" argument).

ETA: I'm not an economist, or an econ major, so I won't vouch for the technical truth of my statements (although I read a lot and try to stay educated on the issues). I'm trying to be more general in what I'm saying. Plus, it's tough to go really in depth on these issues over a message board, where you don't have the instant give and take.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Which part are you responding to, her first statement, or her comparison to socialism?

When I mention socialism in my post, I'm responding to her comparison to socialism.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

However, if her first point (if I'm reading it correctly) means that the government can't be everything to everybody, then I'll agree with that.

The fact that the government can't be everything to everybody goes without saying. It just can't be and isn't realistically expected to be.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Also, I disagree that safety nets "were never protested," because I think most every type of safety net, (such as college loan programs, benefits to corporations, lower mortgage rates for those with children, etc.) have been debated and protested over the years.

There are different levels of debate and protest because there are different types of "safety nets" that target a different segment of the population.

I'm talking about the social welfare of the 1920s and 1930s, which many people credit to be the beginnings of the social welfare system as we know it. There were naysayers but there wasn't the same widescale protest that the more recent social welfare/social program models received. People pretty much felt that these programs were helping those who "truly needed/deserved it." There are race, gender, and social class implications in that.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

When I mention socialism in my post, I'm responding to her comparison to socialism.



The fact that the government can't be everything to everybody goes without saying. It just can't be and isn't realistically expected to be.

Ok, fair enough. Also, thanks for the clarification on your earlier point. I had misinterpreted the statement in the context of your post - that was my fault.

[DGTess]

Life is not fair. The playing field is never level, nor should it be.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DGTess

The playing field is never level, nor should it be.

Ouch

[tld221]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Life is not fair. The playing field is never level, nor should it be.

im gonna make a HUGE assumption based on your posts, but methinks that you make this statement because you are on the side of the field where it works in your favor, and any "leveling" thereof would threaten your societal position.

its similar to people who say they are against affirmative action in universities.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by tld221

im gonna make a HUGE assumption based on your posts, but methinks that you make this statement because you are on the side of the field where it works in your favor, and any "leveling" thereof would threaten your societal position.

its similar to people who say they are against affirmative action in universities.

Well, then you didn't read the part that said I'd probably be helped by some of these "leveling" policies. They feel dishonest to me. I prefer to know I earned my way - and if I have to work harder than the next guy to do so, so be it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Well, then you didn't read the part that said I'd probably be helped by some of these "leveling" policies. They feel dishonest to me. I prefer to know I earned my way - and if I have to work harder than the next guy to do so, so be it.

This is a very simplistic and individualistic way of looking at the social world. Like you're an example of who introductory-level textbooks are made for.

It's as if you think that you have complete control over everything. As if people will always announce "hey, we're about to discriminate against you right now" or "hey, we're about to level the playing field right now" and you'll be able to check "accept" or "decline." You don't really know whether your hard work is being rewarded solely based on your qualifications and your hard work. You can only assume based on your limited ability to gauge your input: outcome ratio.

Women and racial and ethnic minorities have always wanted to earn our way and we've always known that meant we would have to work harder to get on the same level or above. You're not introducing a new concept there.

However, the fact of the matter is that these leveling policies are necessary because there are millions of people who will work their butts off and still be told (or know without having been told) "women can't do this" or "blacks can't do that" or "you're poor, have worked hard all of your life, and tried to save money but there is no hope for getting out of poverty."

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Life is not fair. The playing field is never level, nor should it be.

On some level, I see what you're saying. I grew up in a household where there wasn't much money, and I've had to work my tail off for everything I've gotten, including paying for college (earning lots of scholarship and paying out of pocket), and doing the same thing through law school.

At the same time - that's one heck of an over-generalization you're making. As a white male, I know I've had a TON of advantages that people of other races and backgrounds don't enjoy. To say that the playing field should never be "level" implies that these racial and cultural inequalities, still existing today, are OK.

[DSTCHAOS]

oooooooooooo...donchugo talkinto hurrrr like dat!!!! Whut we gondoifn she get madntell bossman on us?!?!?!?!?!

Praise the God for an unlevel playing field. America wouldn't be America without it. And God bless America.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

oooooooooooo...donchugo talkinto hurrrr like dat!!!! Whut we gondoifn she get madntell bossman on us?!?!?!?!?!

Praise the God for an unlevel playing field. America wouldn't be America without it. And God bless America.

team DSTCHAOS.

[DSTCHAOS]

KSigkid:

You get much respect for being a hardworker but also acknowledging that there is white privilege and male privilege that have helped you along the way in certain contexts.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

KSigkid:

You get much respect for being a hardworker but also acknowledging that there is white privilege and male privilege that have helped you along the way in certain contexts.

So, I am amazed that a white person who supposedly is no way construed as being privileged is that much different from anyone who is poor?

Hell, I grew up much poorer than some of you!

So, I do not agree with a candidate then I am racist?

I do have not have the spelling ajendas or typing skills then I am wrong and some decide they want to make fun of me in their snarky comments as they do to new members.

So DSTCHOAS, does this make you and Sunsuert feel and be a better person?

Your belittleing of people on G C show the type of people you really are!

Oh, prove me wrong and show me how much you and others are so much better?

I feel that some of you have ruined G C with your snarky and small mined comments! How may people have you run off?

Oh, I am sure I will catch hell about this post, but you know what I do not care!

You do it to yourselves.

Oh, did I spell everything to everyones expectations?