Furthermore, the “but our lucky poor have TVs!!” crowd – I’m thinking of DGKnipfer specifically, who said “nd why does it matter what the median income is compared to Tony’s income?” – ought to read up on Adam Smith’s views on poverty to see why that argument is so hollow: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/06/adam-smith-on-p.html

“Wow man, you really need some anger management.”
No, I don’t. I am not angry, just upset, and even if I was, radical injustices OUGHT to make a moral person angry.

How about you quit being so ambiguous and making blanket statements towards all conservatives as if we are all from the same mold. I have stated before that I have no problems bucking my party. I doubt you can say the same.
First off, your doubts are misplaced. I have no party that represents my views and I officially belong to no party. I have serious problems with every party.

When I speak of conservatives generally, I am using the word to describe those with positions that are actually conservative, and not those many people who call themselves conservative but hold positions anathema to The Conservative Movement.

Its called personal responsibility. You should look into it. It’s a fascinating experience and quite liberating. I can’t wait to see how you are going to make that a bad thing.
Are you getting paid to be this snide and obnoxious? You should go pro, you’ve got real talent.

For that matter, please inform us all as to what must a plethora of examples of conservatives rewarding personal responsibility. I’m sure it’s conservatives who were relentless in investigating Enron execs. I’m sure it’s conservatives who call for letting Bear Stearns’ investors reap what they sowed. I’m sure it’s conservatives who wanted to try Scooter Libby for treason for releasing the name of our covert operative.

Oh, wait.

Show me one person, liberal or conservative, that isn’t intent on keeping what they have.
That is completely beside the point, and you know it. The difference is that the conservative, authoritarian view is that those in power BELONG in power, and that those without OUGHT to submit.

You can’t be seriously comparing a CEO with a maintenance worker. Let me ask you a this. If a CEO has gone to college and risen through the ranks and is in charge of and entire company, they shouldn’t make more money than say a janitor?
I’ll take “intentional misreading” for $1000, Alex!
Of course the CEO should make more money, but not because he works harder. The CEO makes more money because his/her work is more valuable.
YOU were the one who claimed that conservatives valued hard work. Which I’m sure you like to tell yourself, but I’m also sure that you don’t really believe it, because I’m sure you don’t pay for goods and services based on the effort put into them, but rather their utility to you. Which is fine – like virtually everyone else, I do that too – but you ought to be more intellectually honest about it.

Pick one. I guarantee you that the Palestinians would love if the Israelis began chasing their own tails by creating a police state. And torturing prisoners, thus losing international support. And becoming aggressors in the battle arena (yes, a “pre-emptive war” IS a war of aggression.) And an economic collapse – are you kidding me? I can’t think of a single terrorist who wouldn’t orgasm on the spot at the idea of his enemy losing his economic power, and thus losing his power to update his military, and their government losing the popular support of the citizenry because their standard of living is suffering.

All of these things serve to isolate a nation, create new enemies that are against them, weaken their power base, and encourage civil unrest. Trying to think of any * more effective * ways for a terrorist to destabilize a country is an exercise I leave to you.

“Bridges collapsing is NOT a federal issue, it’s a state issue and your implication that federal money is being diverted from such resources shows a gross misunderstanding of government spending.”

Hmm, so the levies collapsing during Katrina was just those damn Louisianans fault, for living in a state with a budget deficit?

Have you ever heard of the Army Core of Engineers, whose responsbiility it was to examine the levees? They found them to be faulty, and the possibility for a catastrophe to be frighteningly high. But both the state and federal governments refused to spend the money to repair it because it didn’t seem like an immediate concern. We had better things to buy, like more helicopters for raiding desert tent camps in the Middle East.

And since you’re putting it all on the states, who are helped by the Army, I assume you’re suggesting that states are allowed to have their own self-sufficient standing armies now. That’s very interesting.

“Hyperbole doesn’t suffice for informed or intelligent discussion. Unless of course you can back that nonsensical statement up with something substantive.”

You want substantive? How about the fact that we spend 10 times more than the world’s second largest military spender? I notice you didn’t bother responding to that fact from my previous post. Spending that much is nothing short of an attempt to be able to dominate every other army on the planet, simultaneously.

“When I say the poor do not pay federal income taxes, I mean two things. They either A) do not file, or B) can take advantage of the EITC for one, among many other breaks and incentives.”

I am fully aware of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

I happen to be poor, but not destitute – and I do not benefit from such incentives. The fact that * some * people get a break is that much of a problem for you?

In that case let’s eliminate ALL tax breaks – including W. Bush’s which have saved the rich millions of dollars.

“I don’t have the time or inclination to educate you further, but allow me to speak with a little more precision and say the poor *effectively* do not pay federal income tax.”

And the rich *effectively* do not pay any income tax either, because they have access to accountants, lawyers, offshore tax havens, loopholes, political favors, and corporate sponsorship. Can the poor claim the same? I think not.

See how *effectively* is a completely worthless adjective?

The rich and the poor pay about the same amount – proportionately. The $200 a month that a working class person pays in taxes is effectively equal to the $20,000 someone in the top 1% might (if they are honest and actually file what they earn).

It’s a matter of relative economics. The damage to the lifestyle of a working class person at taking $200 from them every month is approximately the same as the damage to the lifestyle of a wealthy person by taking $20,000.

I don’t know why I’m debating this though. I’m a libertarian. If I had my way there would be effectively little or no tax for * anyone *. But since I live in the real world and know that will never happen, I at least think we should spend taxes helping the less fortunate.

When people bitch and moan about the poor taking their money, it hits a nerve with me because I have devoted my career to being an advocate for getting the homeless back on their feet.

“Our “poor” enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. This is a fact. You’re trying to bolster your position by confusing “poor” with ‘destitute’.”

The poor are one step away from being destitute. Selfish people wanting to preserve an ultrarich, exceptionally extravagant lifestyle instead of paying a few dollars to keep their countrymen from becoming homeless are what turn poor into destitute into homeless.

You’re right, our country has the highest standard of living in the world. It is unacceptable that there are millions of people who are unable to participate in that standard of living because the others do not wish to help them.

Again, more nonsense. Almost EVERYONE has had credit for the past 10-15 years. Poor included. Your facts are a bit fuzzy. When I say everyone, I mean EVERYONE has lived beyond their means. Did I say that whiny babies getting their just rewards was the sole reason for the economic troubles in this country? Good basic strawman argument. But that was you who said that, not me.

However the writing has been on the wall for a long time about not enough Americans saving money. They’ve been doing the opposite – borrowing more and more. Why? Because the vast majority aren’t starving or homeless. Our “poor” enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. This is a fact. You’re trying to bolster your position by confusing “poor” with ‘destitute’.

***”To charge those people income tax would be utterly and completely ridiculous. You’re talking about creating new homeless here.”***

Another strawman argument. I never said, suggested, or implied this. Again, that is all you and makes discussion with you difficult. I’m also not referring to the under $8k bracket either.

When I say the poor do not pay federal income taxes, I mean two things. They either A) do not file, or B) can take advantage of the EITC for one, among many other breaks and incentives. I don’t have the time or inclination to educate you further, but allow me to speak with a little more precision and say the poor *effectively* do not pay federal income tax.

Hyperbole doesn’t suffice for informed or intelligent discussion. Unless of course you can back that nonsensical statement up with something substantive.

**”And yes, the military steals all of the money that could go to education, and saving the economy, and museums, libraries, infrastructure (collapsing bridges anyone?), etc.”**

Hogwash. Utter hogwash. The military doesn’t “steal” anything and is vastly smaller than it was in the 1990s. It’s not even where most of your tax dollars are spent…by far. Bridges collapsing is NOT a federal issue, it’s a state issue and your implication that federal money is being diverted from such resources shows a gross misunderstanding of government spending. So much so that you are probably ill-equipped to have this discussion. I don’t mean that insultingly, I’m just pointing out a glaring display of ignorance on your part.

***”The goal of the terrorist is not to terrify, but to create exactly the attitude you are espousing. To turn a free and prosperous nation against itself so that it no longer takes care of the less fortunate, no longer maintains its buildings or builds new things, becomes paranoid and begins spying on its own citizens, and gains the hatred of the entire world by torturing prisoners.”***

This is not the goal of a terrorist, this is you hijacking (if you’ll pardon the pun) the terminology to suit your own agenda. I challenge you to support with factual evidence any international terrorist organization whose aims are the ones you outline above.

However I would point out that suggesting that the whole recession is just giving the whiny babies who overextended their credit their just desserts, is a little narrowsighted. This recession will hurt the poor most of all. Those people who lived beyond their reach all those years will mostly just lose their homes and have to move to apartments or less luxurious homes, and start surviving on the money they actually make instead of the money they can con a financial institution out of.

The poor do not have that luxury – they’ve never had credit and they never will. When the cost of living skyrockets and wages and employment availability plummets, it hurts – as in, causes starvation, homelessness, and heath problems.

In order to be exempt from federal taxes, you have to be almost starving to death to begin with.

The only time it is legal to pay no federal taxes is if you earn less than $8,000 per year.

That’s (fun coincidence here on the division) call it $667.66 just to satisfy the superstitious, per month.

In most areas of the country that’s not enough to pay rent, let alone pay utility bills and buy food on top of rent.

Another way to think about it – $20 per day.

I know quite a few people who spend that much on a daily basis just on luxury items and eating out. For anyone making less than $8,000 a year, the only possible way to survive is to use all of the money you make to pay rent and utilities, live in the most run down and crime ridden neighborhood in a small, crumbling apartment, and get your food from a charity’s food bank. There is no additional money for anything else. You survive. You live to work and hope to survive another day.

To charge those people income tax would be utterly and completely ridiculous. You’re talking about creating new homeless here.

**”What happens if one lives withing one’s means, but then the economy turns sucky and suddenly things are beyond those same means? The issue as clear as you make is seem, I’m sorry to say. And the poor don’t pay taxes? Sorry, but in most states, if you own property or buy anything, you pay taxes. Last I checked, there wasn’t a magical exemption from sales taxes for people below a certain income level.”**

The economy turns sucky from the majority living beyond their means and financial institutions allowing it. But it begins with the individual’s greed.

You mention state tax and sales tax. They are both levied by the state and if you’ll reread what I wrote, I mentioned the federal level taxes which is what the discussion was about.

“The ONLY credible threat to the U.S. is not invasion or subjugation, but terrorist attacks”

Actually, while Terrorism™ is indeed a constant threat, unless it is a nuclear attack, an individual terrorist act is probably less of a long-term threat than many of the economic “weapons” we face. Witness the power Russia has over Europe because of its huge oil and natural gas reserves. Ditto the Middle East’s hold on the U.S.

Now think of how far along we could be on the path toward a radical retooling of our own infrastructure to accommodate non-petroleum based fuels if we hadn’t gone and spent a trillion or so bucks blowing up Iraq. I’d much rather employ all those soldiers and the people who support them in a project that actually strengthens the core of this country, rather than wasting the resources in a massive folly that has only harmed our standing in the world and seriously exposed the fragility of our economy.

But that’s the elitist in me talking (to get back on topic).

Like we have. Like the old Soviet Union did.”

Extremely good point. If we continue on the path we are on, we will collapse from military overspending the same way the Soviet Union did.

‘Self-delusional insanity’ is spending fully 10 times more than the second largest military in the world on national defense (and offense), and trying to police the entire world.

Spending to defend this country is one thing.

PAYING FOR WORLD DOMINATION is quite another.

And yes, the military steals all of the money that could go to education, and saving the economy, and museums, libraries, infrastructure (collapsing bridges anyone?), etc.

The fact that you think the barbarians are at the gate ready to knock down the city walls clearly means you are still rooted in Cold-War era thinking.

News flash: the U.S. won. We’re the only superpower now.

The ONLY credible threat to the U.S. is not invasion or subjugation, but terrorist attacks. And being that we’re one of the largest countries in the world (with a correspondingly vast border on all sides) it is utterly and completely impossible to prevent anyone from getting in.

The goal of the terrorist is not to terrify, but to create exactly the attitude you are espousing. To turn a free and prosperous nation against itself so that it no longer takes care of the less fortunate, no longer maintains its buildings or builds new things, becomes paranoid and begins spying on its own citizens, and gains the hatred of the entire world by torturing prisoners.

By supporting this farce called the War on Terror you are letting the terrorists win in their objectives. They might lose a few fresh bodies but there are always more where they came from (you know – the people who lost family when we bombed their cities?)

The trouble with an obscenely large military, is that politicians and others in power (note the difference) find all that physical might so tempting to use to further interests that have nothing to do with “world stability.”

There is no question that this nation needs a strong military. The world is not all happy bunnies and sweetness. But when so much of a nation’s economy is tied to the military and the vast corporate/industrial base it feeds, then you start running into problems.

Like we have. Like the old Soviet Union did.

What happens if one lives withing one’s means, but then the economy turns sucky and suddenly things are beyond those same means? The issue as clear as you make is seem, I’m sorry to say. And the poor don’t pay taxes? Sorry, but in most states, if you own property or buy anything, you pay taxes. Last I checked, there wasn’t a magical exemption from sales taxes for people below a certain income level.

CJSF

An excellent article on this topic, titled “Greetings From Idiot America”, was published in Esquire Magazine in 2005 (http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Greetings_from_Idiot_America.html).

In some of the best prose ever it describes the unremitting and nonsensical attacks on expertise within post-millenial America:

“…The rise of Idiot America is essentially a war on expertise. It’s not so much antimodernism or the distrust of intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter deftly teased out of the national DNA forty years ago. Both of those things are part of it. However, the rise of Idiot America today represents—for profit mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power—the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they’re talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.”

Our government at all levels has proven its incompetence time and time again and some people want to make it bigger?? This is irrational in the extreme.

I don’t necessarily think that if you stop funding the military that someone else will come in and push us out (chances are definitely increased significantly though), but what will happen is that world stability will suffer, and as a result, our economy will suffer. And suffer hard. The military, contrary to your poor understanding of it Tyler, does not concern itself solely with better ways to kill. Our military and merely its presence is such a stabilizing factor in this world, that you can enjoy the high standard of living you enjoy today. Tyler claims that he is poor while he’s posting to a blog on the internet. If, in fact, he is poor, your standard of living is still leagues higher than the poor in other countries.

Thank the military you clearly don’t understand.

“No one wants to help.” Calling bull on that one Tyler. It’s “how” that is the issue. Your solution is simply to throw money at the problem. My money. Not yours. If you’re poor, you don’t pay taxes in this country. At least on the federal level that you’re talking about. I want to help those who need help too, but I don’t want to also pay for those who are there because of their poor life decisions either. And guess what – the government isn’t going to be able to tell the difference. Why are Americans getting foreclosed upon? Stupid financial decisions. Like most Americans – living beyond their means then blaming someone else for their financial woes and expecting the government (which ultimately means you and me) to bail their sorry butts out.

it is much easier being an office worker or manager than it is to wash dishes, be a janitor, or work in fast food. The only reason those jobs pay less is that we value intellectual labor more than we do actual labor, because the labor pool for physical tasks is much, much bigger than the pool for intellectual labor.

Tyler, while I seem to be on your side when it comes to the military and other resource-grabbing institutions, this quote really bums me out. You seem to be implying that there is no real difference between “intellectual labor” and “physical labor.” This is patently absurd. A brain surgeon can wash dishes quite effectively, but a dishwasher probably cannot perform brain surgery. Likewise, a really effective project manager (they are out there) can organize a team, devise a work schedule, assign tasks, manage resources, supervise production, and do myriad other things that keep a business running. Someone digging holes for a living probably cannot do the same at the drop of a hat.

Please note that I am not denigrating people who dig holes, or wash dishes, or perform any other vaulable labor. But their skills are wayyyyy down on the talent scale and way more common. That is why the labor pool is “much bigger.”

One shouldn’t confuse “work” with “sweat.” Working with your head can be just as grueling as performing manual labor.

Do you think every other nation will stop funding military research? Do you think they do research in non-lethal weapons to the extent that we do? Do you believe that they will suddenly respect us and leave us in peace if we stop designing new weapon systems? Not everybody respects the right of others. You assume that if the US does not fund a large military that every other country will suddenly give up their own aggressive nature. Self delusional insanity. No US military equals no US social programs because very quickly somebody will push their way in and take what you and I have for their own. Or do you buy that whole bullies are just cowards line of crap? Like it or not somebody has to stand on the wall and defend your rights or you will lose them. It has to be a balancing act between social spending, defense spending, infrastructure, and a dozen other things the government needs to do.

And then you assume that social programs that have historically been rife with corruption will be intelligently managed and appropriately distributed? By whom? They never have been before so what mechanism will you implement to make sure that they are now?

And you forget about the social support function that our military provides both in jobs and in emergency relief. The government response to Katrina was screwed up 6 ways from Sunday because of incompetence on the part of both the Bush Admin and the Louisiana State Admin but how much worse would it have been without the National Guard and their expensive military hardware that went in after Katrina and set up search and rescue, medical support, and supply capability that nobody else has? The same with almost any disaster inside or outside the US? Government and politics may screw up the response but don’t forget that they only have a capability to respond because of that military you want to stop funding.

“This is why when I hear people decry the wealthy got lucky and shouldn’t object to paying an ever increasing percentage of their income to many redundant, inefficient government programs I lash out.”

You assume a hell of a lot.

a) I have never and will never settle for a single job. I can not conceive of the type of person who works the same dead-end job for 20 years happily. But I actually * liked * the job I was doing there, but the fact that there was ingrained nepotism and a lack of advancement opportunities forced me to leave the position.

b) I’m * already * in the process of creating my own business, which is actually my life calling and a way of helping the less fortunate, and not just a way of making money.

c) I would never expect someone to “lend it to me” or “give it to me” as you are suggesting. I may be poor but I’m not stupid and I’m not greedy.

d) Wishing for a better way and “being a bitter man” are not the same things. We cannot work to improve the problems that confront us if we bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problems do not exist.

e) I’ve never suggested handouts to people who just want to live on welfare for the rest of their lives. But there are people who through no fault of their own are suffering immensely in the richest country in the nation, and no one wants to help them because it might mean a few extra dollars off their tax check.

If you’re so concerned about tax dollars, how about we stop spending trillions of dollars on military and intelligence programs and instead fund social programs that can be intelligently managed and appropriately distributed to help the people that need it? Then your taxes won’t raise at all, but will go to promoting life instead of finding better ways to kill.

“You may wish to work on your “networking” skills first.”

Having people skills is one thing. Being willing to shamelessly degrade yourself and sacrifice your integrity in order to make an extra buck and go another rung up the corporate ladder is quite another. There’s a word for that kind of networking – SELLING OUT.

It appears that many posters here are quite blinded by ideology, which is ironic given the general disdain for religion I’m sure they hold. So many patently absurd generalizations, ad hominems, and demonizing of conservatives here help me fully understand the difference between elite and elitist. Your science may be worthy, but your political ideology is no better than the next.

You’re part of the problem.

The problem with discussions like this is the huge variance in the costs of living, taxes and other factors in this country (or world, for that matter). $80K might seem very rich in some areas, but here in Southern California, you can make $200K and most definitely *not* feel rich. Trust me on that one. You *have* to factor things like that in, but the politicians never do. They think they can pick a number and it works everywhere. But that’s the typical ideological “one size fits all” zerolevel unthink.

Just because the religious zealots are pushing hard for it does not make it a bad choice. They have managed to find a loophole that gives them the opening they have been waiting for. That loophole can be closed. There are many wonderful private schools that give a quality education and have no religious connections. I just couldn’t afford to send my kids there. I’m lucky enough that my kids go to a good public school; a community oriented school where parents have a voice. Unfortunately, not everyone has that. Education is the single most important gift you can give someone and its a shame so many are not able to receive it. Can vouchers alone fix it? No, but maybe in conjunction with other measures it can make a positive impact. Its a debate worth having.

Tyler, you sound like a very bitter man. You had a sucky job? Get another. That one sucks too? Move on. If you really want to have YOUR perfect working conditions, start your own business. Don’t even start with the “I need ton’s of money, and nobody’s going to give it to me.” You’d be right no one will give it to you, but, they will lend it to you.

You may wish to work on your “networking” skills first.

Don’t bother asking. I own my own business.

My wife and I were at or below the poverty level. I first put the house up as collateral for the small loan as the down payment on the mortgage on the property I was getting (sometime you might have to bend a few rules). Then I had to work for years bringing home less than my employees. Sometimes months at time bringing home NOTHING. My wife was working part time. My days were usually 14-16 hours.

Now I have a pretty successful business, still doing about 60 hrs a week. I work for mostly VERY successful people and I am lazy by most of their standards of work.

This is why when I hear people decry the wealthy got lucky and shouldn’t object to paying an ever increasing percentage of their income to many redundant, inefficient government programs I lash out.

I call them like I see them. Yes, part of it is personal experience – I worked for years at a company, working my butt off day in and day out and taking on extra tasks and going the extra mile with overtime and pitching in on extra projects. The result? a .50c pay raise and a trinket with the company logo on it.

I don’t have what they refer to as “networking skills” (sucking up to the boss) so I do not advance in a hierarchy.

But my company is far from a limited example. When an Arabian horse trainer with no experience in law enforcement, military, or disaster management is appointed as the Head of FEMA, it seems obvious that such nepotism is both widespread and institutional.

What horrid company did you work at? I see some of the brownnosing, but everybody always turns on the brownnosers. They don’t last long if you don’t let them. I will admit though that I spent 2 years in the Air Force where you get tested on your job skills and knowledge. However, the level of incompetence you describe is extreme to say the least and would have most large companies grinding to a halt in no time. I have a feeling you are bitter about some perceived favoritism in your own wok history.

I do agree with you on No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB is an impossible pipe dream that has forced U.S. schools to teach to the lowest common denominator. I do not want my kids educated as if they have an 80 IQ. It is just as bad (if not worse) that the idea of not hurting anybody’s self esteem. If I could afford to get my kids out of the public school system on my own I would. Vouchers are no cure ether. They’re just another way to gut the public school system. Vouchers are only supported by the Religious Right of the Republican Party because it is a back door way to allow religious education with public school money. NCLB should be scrapped now before it causes more harm.

If you believe this you really need to do more research.

These programs have led to a mass shortage of teachers, mass firings of good teachers who happened to live in urban areas where the students had a disadvantage in standardized tests, and children who are essentially illiterate and/or speak absolutely no English after graduating from high school.

Shutting down schools because their students are disadvantaged poor is not making sure “no child” is “left behind” – it’s ensuring that only the rich kids get an education.