"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
I'm just saying those that think we should pay more taxes ought to poney
it up on their
own. Lead by example.
You're being silly. They're talking about taxes. Those are part of the
democratic process.
I'm just saying that if you believe in higher taxes, figure it out and
donate the extra
now. Maybe you can shame me into giving.
I think you would benefit from a dose of simple economic reality. Here, this
is very, very good:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080103287.html
It's so brutally on the mark that the right-wing blogosphere has erupted in
apoplexy over it. I hope they're taking their blood-pressure meds. g
No I'm not sending in my extra share, that is for those that think we
don't pay enough
already.
Again, you're being silly. Vote.
I will be tomorrow. Michigan Primary. I'm thinking Hoekstra might be a
good governor.
Have not figured out if he is also running for his current seat in the
house.
Maybe he hasn't, either. Maybe he's still looking for those WMDs. He already
found the cannisters. g
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support
of
the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to
the
individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the
joint
tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in
proportion
to their respective interests in the estate."
Proportion not progressive tax rate.
He didn't mean a flat percentage -- he was talking about proportions of
available income. For example, here are some more Smith quotes:
"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c.
is
made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages
of
necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of
the
rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the
poor,
by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the
different
parts of the country."
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
find
it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue
is
spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the
principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and
sets
off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they
possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall
heaviest
upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps,
be
anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich
should
contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their
revenue,
but something more than in that proportion."
Hey, we got food stamps for that stuff. Even the poor in the USA are
fat.
I think that
Burke guy is a man for a different time 
That wasn't Burke. That was Adam Smith. You know, the conservatives'
sacred
economist. d8-)
Well, you assume A.S. is sacred to me and you are assuming my libertine
tenancies keep me
locked into conservatism.
Ah, I didn't realize you were a libertine. And your wife doesn't object?
d8-)
"....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should
be
to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the
poor
and burdening the rich.'"
He likely had an awsome tax attorney.
That was Lord Kames he was referring to -- a leader of the Scottish
Enlightenment. You know, the philosophies upon which the US system of
givernment is based. d8-)
Well, I'll admit the name didn't strike a bell. Giverment? Freudian
slip?
May be. More likely it's just arthritis.
His proportion and your proportion are not the same thing.
That's been the predominant philosophy throughout Western history. The
current right-wing thinking about taxes in general is the anomaly, and
it's
an ideology carried to its ridiculous extreme in its opposition to
estate
taxes -- which have been with us since Roman times.
Stealing the pennies off a dead mans eyes. Some have no shame.
What's a dead man doing with pennies on his eyes?
Keeping them closed. No one wants open eyelids during a funeral. It
would be a bit
creepy.
You can argue with it, but you aren't arguing with Iggy or me when you
do.
You're arguing with some of the best conservative thinkers in history.
Even
the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, recognized that the
real
problem with taxes is that nobody likes them. g
No chit.
You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite
isn't
going to work
either.
Wes
When the government takes your house and starts paying you a set
amount
from
a formula set in Washington, you can talk about communism in the US
with
a
straight face. In the meantime, it's as silly as comparing government
officials with Hitler.
Why is it Hitler gets brought in the conversation so often?
Because communism is brought up so often. g
We should remind people of bad ideas often.
But since you brought it up,
I'll play along. I'm sure Obama would like to have his own battalion
of
Brown shirts.
What was that idea of his, "Civilian National Security Force"?
We have one. It's called the National Guard. No, they are NOT prevented
from
acting within the country.
You are dodging. He wanted something else.
What did he want, Wes? And how do you know?
It was in the news.
Oh, *that's* reassuring. g
Do you have some objection to the National Guard? See the Militia Act of
1903 and the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and
Article
IV, Section 4.
I'd have to give it some thought. IIRC the founders didn't like large
standing armies.
That's why they established a militia system that became the National
Guard.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union,
suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Which Militia?
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened)
against
domestic Violence.
I don't see anything about the National Guard. Johnny come lately
things
like the Militia
act of 1903 don't count.
"[O]n Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive...against
domestic
violence." Those are the Founders' words.
The Militia acts of 1792, well I'll count those.
It's amazing what you can learn when you actually read the thing. d8-)
I have no objections to reading. Highway signs and auto controls have
tended to make
understanding the written word irrelevant for most. Pet peeve, I learn
how to read and
now we want everything to have pictograms so the illiterate and illegal
can function in
society. 
--
In her book "Atlas Shrugged", first published in 1957, Ayn Rand
warned
us
about the society we find
ourselves in. We were warned.
We were warned about the consequences of taking to heart wacky
hypotheticals
cooked up as bad fiction by lousy writers. g
Orwell and Rand showed us the road ahead. We are well on our way.
Rand was a little loony. So was Orwell, but he was projecting the
consequences of totalitarianism that was blocked by the Cold War and by
the
collapse of the USSR. He wrote in 1948; he couldn't have known at the
time
how it would work out. But his essay on political speech could be the
model
used by Sarah Palin and some of the Teabaggers -- if she actually read.
Sarah reads rather well. I hear her teleprompter skills are at last as
good as the
President.
Orwell could really write up a storm, too. Rand's writing was amateurish
and
pathetic. In each case, it reflected the quality of their thinking.
Writing
usually does.
I've only read Animal Farm and 1984. That essay on political speech,
well, it was giving
me a headache from reading it. Maybe that is why Sarah is so popular,
we
know what she
said with out having to diagram the sentence.
It's easy. She basically says nothing, in simple words. g
Perhaps, simple words are lost on you? As a writer of skill, is it
possible that short
and simple is an indication that the person uttering such might be lacking
in the
comprehension of the subject at hand?
Simple words are great. Saying nothing is not. She has no subject at hand.
It's all attitude, mostly based on ignorance.
Rand needed an editor (No, not you ). I could cut 100 pages out of
her
book and no one
would miss what I cut. Of course English not being her native language,
I'm willing to
cut her some slack. It was the ideas that mattered.
What she needed was, first, common sense; and, second, some ability that
extended beyond 19th century melodrama. She was in love with Nietzsche's
concept of the Superman -- just as he conceived it before he went insane.
The most accurate way to think of her is as Nietzsche Lite.
Sorry, that is lost on me. Nietzche wasn't part of my education.
Looking at Mimi in
Mechanix Illustrated was. 
Mimi was good. Nietzshe is important. He inspired a lot of dictators, who
read him selectively.
I hope all is going well with you. I'm tired of this muggy summer, give
me fall before I
melt.
Yeah, it's good. We're having a couple of cooler days. But the water is so
warm (Raritan Bay is 82 degrees) that the fish all moved out into the ocean.
Hang in there, it can't stay hot. What's it like over on the Lake Michigan
shoreline? It's usually a lot cooler, as I recall.
--
Ed Huntress