"Statistically, the wealthiest Americans are the ones who start or run companies. The less money you confiscate from them, the more of their capital they have to continue to do what they do." Absolutely right, and not only statistically, practically as well. Tax cuts at the top, are very effective.

You and I have not agreed on much in the past, however I'd have to say I "agree" 110% with your last 2 posts!

Draginol, Seriously, Do u really believe in these things or just trying to liven the discussion - ? if it is the second, then it is ok. if it is the first please tell me who was instrumental in doing (and who fought against) the following: 1- Creating Air/Water quality Standards 2- Creating Auto-Safety standards 3- Creating OSHA 4- The best High-way system in the world 5- Product and food Safety standards 6- The Space Program 7- Making the WWW and the Dot.Com revolution available to everyone 8- The Manhatten Project and the Nuclear program 9- The GI program 10- The SBA 11- The Voting Rights for all 12- Education equality to all 13- Higer Education affordable to many many talented people 14- International AID program 15-SS Program 16-well, i cant go on .... so please tell me a major program that was NOT started by Democrats. As for working for minimum wage, please tell me why do you think people work 40-60 hrs a week for that kind of money? you think hunger may be a reason? or may be they just have too much time on their hands?

Democrats believe that charity and help must come through the government rather than through private efforts.

When it comes to private - individual - efforts, liberals lag behind signfiicantly.

The things you list above are so myopic in terms of what you think is a "good thing" that they're definitely worth addressing by point:

1) Creating air/water standards. It was actually Republicans that have historically taken the lead on this.  The EPA was a Nixon thing.  Liberals tend to be the ones, however, that take a good cause and wreck it.  Take the national park system. Brought into life by conservatives but exploited by liberals (I mean, no drilling in ANWR? That's ridiculous).

2)  Creating auto-safety standards. Those are mostly done PRIVATELY. This will be a reoccurring theme here. You seem to dismiss private effort.

3)  OSHA is one of those things that was a "good" idea in concept but ruined in practice (another Republican created thing again - Nixon I believe).  OSHA is not something I would want to take credit for today.  The ones who do most of the work of creating a positive work environment are business owners who are overwhelmingly conservative.

4) The best highway systme in the world? I think there's debate on that and secondly, that had broad support (the system we have was created during the Eisenhower era).

5)  Again - safety standards are overwhelmingly decided by private invididuals and companies, not "the government". The government is good at interfering. 

Again: You are substituting political belief for tangible action. Milliosn of liberals will give up doing anythign tangible because they wait for the government to do it for them. Conservatives are the ones across the nation running businesses and doing the bulk of the private charity work.

6) The space program - yes, the government confiscated billions from private citizens to pay people who were overwhelmingly poltiically conservative to actually get us to the moon and so forth.

7)  The dot-com world is overwhelmingly a conservative invention. Now you're just out in left field.

8)  Giving the left credit for the nuclear program is nonsense. Again, you seem to give credit to the left as long as there's a left-of-center politician invovled somewhere in the process.

The rest of your examples are pretty much the same thing (the voting rights thing is particularly laughable since most Democrats at the time opposed giving Blacks equal rights).

I'll grant you that there are examples of liberals, by using the gears of government, are able to create social change (social security).  And in a way, that is a type of action.

But what I was referring to was the effort of individuals. I'll certainly also grant you that the left is much better at spending money that was earned by other people on programs that they think will make the world a better place. 

But when it comes to day to day actions, an increasing % of the left is substituting political belief for tangible action.  Liberals, for eample, who believe in income re-distribution are 30%+ less likely to donate to charity, volunteer their time, or even give blood than Americans who are against income re-distribution. 

In Europe, where the government has essentially completely taken over social work, private charity and volunteerism is exceptionally rare. 

In the United States, we give less than 0.1% of our GDP to international aid causes. But PRIVATE charities give out 0.4% of our GDP to international aid causes and those private charities are overwhelmingly funded by peopel who are self-described "conservatives".

So you can't really say that the left has "taken the lead" on international aid because no, it hasn't. The only thing the left has taken a lead on is substituting the government for doing things (at a far lower level) than what private groups have done.

 

(Draginol:But what I was referring to was the effort of individuals)

There is no substitute for "the efforts of individuals" in doing anything no matter who initiated it. No matter how good any government is, nothing will be done unless businesses and individuals actually not only do it but also do it right. I never questioned that. However, those businesses and individuals belong to all sorts of political groups, liberals, conservatives, far-left, far-right and everything inbetween. I thought you were talking about the leadership in the society in general and in the government.

And yes, Eisenhower and Nixon were presidents when some of these programs were initiated MAINLEY by Democrats (i guess u like to call them lefties -). No Democrat ever said that No Republican ever supported these programs. There used to be many many Republicans who were aware of the need for leadership in starting forward-looking society-affecting, National programs. we still have some of those, and all Democrats still appreciate them and their leadership. Most Democrats (forget the talking heads) really liked Eisenhower AND Nixon (till he tried to be a crook ... and failed in that, which means he really didnt know how to be a crook -).

My point is really this: The government and political leaders have a huge responsibility in initiating programs that serve the society and the nation. Not that they or the government can do it by themselves but without them, no business or individual, in general, will have the ability or the effect that is needed to really make a difference. looking at it this way, Democrats did most of what we take for granted now.

For some reason, conservatives believe that Democrats do not like businesses. This really is a political ploy used by the Republicans to distract people from the facts. How can Democrats NOT like, love, endorse or care about businesses? where would people work? who is going to pay their salaries? It is a myth, as the one that says Democrats love taxes. In reality Democrats hate taxes more than Republicans. Why? it is simple fact: a rich business man or high-salary employee can afford to pay his taxes and still have more than he needs to live his life as if he paid no taxes at all. what is even 40% taxes from a $100K/ month pay check? he still takes home $60K/month. but even 15% of $1000/month pay check makes a huge difference in the quality of life. of course the rich man will hate paying $40K/month taxes, but the poor one will even hate it 10 times more.

Why then don't Democrats support all these tax cuts that Republicans want? Simple: the rich people in general don't need the government. They can get all what they need by themselves. They can build their own schools, their own hospitals, their own roads and they actually do that. On the other hand, the rest of the people cant do any of these things themselves, they have to do it collectively. and who is their collective representative? THE GOVERNMENT. And government need taxes.

Every one HATE the government and taxes. Rich people can afford to live without them. All the other people of the country Can't.

As for International AID program, no question the people are more generous than our government. I never disputed that. Even in domestic help to the needy the same applies. AND this is really a shame on our government. It should do more for both. We can afford it and we owe it to the needy. NOT that we should throw our money away or give it to the lazy or the undeserving, but there are many many people here and in other countries who can use help and this will eventually be in our own interest. these people can be future consumers for our goods when they can afford to buy them. There are literally billions of consumers out there for our good, we just have to get them up on their own feet and they will start buying. There will always be a good number of crooks who are lazy and dont buy anything but that is a small price for us to pay to get the mojority who just waiting for a little help to stand up.

Good response, ThinkAloud.  It's 1:35am so I won't be able to respond at length tonight.

A few points:

1) While there certainly are Democrats who run businesses, they are relatively rare. That is, if you go to a chamber of commerce or entrepreneur get together or a business awards banquet, you would have difficulty finding one.

Or put another way, Democrats are as common in business leadership positions as Republicans are in academia.  That is, they exist -- in theory.

 

2) I agree that when it comes to GOVERNMENT social programs, Democrats led most of it. That is because, by their nature, Democrats are the ones who try to increase the role of government.

Where we disagree is that whether or not this is a good thing. 

3) Some of the social change most certainly was not led by "the left".  Voting rights and conservation most certainly did not get it start from the left.  The programs championed by the left almost always involve taking money from one citizen to give to another.

There is nothing heroic or charitable about giving other people's money away. I

4) If you want to talk about individual sacrifice and charity, the right (statistically) by far has the lead. Statistically speaking, the more "liberal" an individual identifies themselves, the less they personally give as a % of their income to charity, the less time each year they volunteer to help their community and the less likely they are to give blood.  I can only speculate why that is the case but my opinion from talking to liberals is that they think it's enough simply to believe strongly in government social policies.

5) We don't need a big federal government. Rich or poor. We don't. We don't need a nanny state to give us free pills or send us checks when we get old or send us checks when we have children we can't afford. It is not a good thing for the government to rob people of their self-reliance and turn them into wards of the state. We can agree to disagee on that social policy but that does mean that you can't state that these social programs are accepted as being "good" in any objective sense.

6) My end point is that there is nothing "Good" about the government confiscating someone's property at the point of a gun to hand to someone else. There is nothing generous in someone advocating giving someone else's money to someone else.  The private sector really does and continues to step up and do a much better job (look at Katrina relief or some fo the stats on the Tsunami work -- outside US military help -- the American private sector provided more than 2X the rest of the world combined including taking US government support).

Fantastic and thoughtful comment, ThinkAloud.

"While there certainly are Democrats who run businesses, they are relatively rare."

Quoting census statistics or out your ass statistics?

"Democrats are as common in business leadership positions as Republicans are in academia. That is, they exist -- in theory."

Biased, pointless.

"There is nothing heroic or charitable about giving other people's money away."

That's not the role of taxes, taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, at least not in the United States. The role of taxes in the government is to maintain stable economic growth while also maintaining a government system. The re-allocation of funds at all levels of economic income benefit all other persons, at each income level, in direct as well as indirect ways. The "giving other people's money away" also does not allude real well to just how well the current system works. There are inefficiencies, government is the prime example of an inefficient "state" of something that still works.

"We don't need a big federal government."

Correct, we need a strong and more efficient federal government. One we are not likely to see until we face another larger and more dangerous government bent on our disassembly or a revolution from within.

"We don't need a nanny state to give us free pills or send us checks when we get old or send us checks when we have children we can't afford."

Maybe you don't, but millions of current generation Americans, have and continue to need a social security program. The reality is a large segment of the population is unable to work in the majority of jobs, beyond a certain age, and whatsoever in the competitive marketplace beyond a certain age. Say these two ages are 60 and 80. With millions living beyond these ages, the burden will fall to their children, and families, when they go into poverty taking care of their elders then the country's economic development is stunted indirectly. It is far better to have a marginal safety net then none at all. Not to say trimming and molding the social security system wouldn't be fair, but removing the social security system, a system millions depend on for their daily subsistence and millions more indirectly depend on to maintain the economic security of their own lives, would be far more damaging to the economy then the alternative.

In the future, where private investment and social security privatization is practiced then things might be different. Today though lots of people are forced to face the choice between dinner or prescriptions, to do allow government to do nothing to affect that is both unethical and bad practical economics.

"My end point is that there is nothing "Good" about the government confiscating someone's property at the point of a gun to hand to someone else."

If you don't pay taxes, you simply go to jail, nobody points guns at you unless you avoid the jail. There certainly are plenty of "good" things for both you and the individuals who receive benefits from the government. These include stable and reasonably assured economic growth, as well as the services of which everybody benefits from.

"While there certainly are Democrats who run businesses, they are relatively rare." Quoting census statistics or out your ass statistics? "Democrats are as common in business leadership positions as Republicans are in academia. That is, they exist -- in theory." Biased, pointless.

These are statements of fact.  Not just first person experience but there have been countless business surveys of CEOs, entrepreneurs, and executives and they are overwhelmingly Republican.

"We don't need a nanny state to give us free pills or send us checks when we get old or send us checks when we have children we can't afford." Maybe you don't, but millions of current generation Americans, have and continue to need a social security program. The reality is a large segment of the population is unable to work in the majority of jobs, beyond a certain age, and whatsoever in the competitive marketplace beyond a certain age. Say these two ages are 60 and 80. With millions living beyond these ages, the burden will fall to their children, and families, when they go into poverty taking care of their elders then the country's economic development is stunted indirectly. It is far better to have a marginal safety net then none at all. Not to say trimming and molding the social security system wouldn't be fair, but removing the social security system, a system millions depend on for their daily subsistence and millions more indirectly depend on to maintain the economic security of their own lives, would be far more damaging to the economy then the alternative.

Again: The government acting as a nanny. People apparently unable or unwilling to save mnoey for retirement.

You may think it's far better to have some safety net (and the billions we spend are significantly more than marginal in my opinion) but that is obviously subjective. I don't agree.

In your opinion the government's role is to provide money to individuals who are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves.  That's a valid opinion. But it's not one I share.

Taxation is the physical confiscation of a person's property.  I pay my taxes -- willingly -- but I never for a second think it's a voluntary thing.

I am curious why you think that the federal government provides "stable and resonably assured economic growth".  The government is largely a hindrance to economic growth.  What you seem to think is that we have a managed economy. We don't. We have a mixed economy that is mostly based on a free market.  The good times we have is not because of the government other than in the sense of them not actually sabotaging it through excessive taxation and regulation.

Governments can certainly harm the economy but they definitely don't help. They walk a tight rope between providing services that its citizens deem necessary and excessive economic interference that can stifle the economy.

As a citizen with the right to vote, I won't vote for politicians who think their willingness to give tax dollars to other people demonstrates compassion on their part. There is nothing noble about spending tax money. Too many politicians, and indeed too many Americans on the political left, think that their support of federal social programs somehow makes them personaly compassionate.

That's not the role of taxes, taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, at least not in the United States.

200 years ago, yes.  Today?  BS!

Well more to the point - the role of taxes as intended by the founders of our country.

I am curious why you think that the federal government provides "stable and resonably assured economic growth". The government is largely a hindrance to economic growth.

Perhaps he's thinking of the Federal Reserve, which has certainly delivered on the "stable" part of the bargain during the last thirty years, and added to growth. Though that too was a hindrance before then.

Sure. Though that has nothing to do with taxation.