"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:34:10 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:
I think a lot fewer people are deliberatly deceptive than is generally
believed.
Pardon me but that is nothing but weasel words. Just 'how many' is it
that "people generally believe'? How many is "a lot fewer"?

I'd wager that if you took a poll at least half the people would agree with
the statement "politicans from politcal parties other than my own routinely
act in a deceitful manner." In actuality I would wager it's really less than
10% of the time.

I made no claims as to gross quantity and the point was simply that
there are people who try to deceive.

Agreed, I'm just trying to quantify things a little since at the end of the
day I don't think things are nearly as bad as my impression of your take on it
is. :-)

But perhaps I'm not understanding just how bad of shape you think the country
is in...

No country has ever had a tax system that benefits all citizens equally.
So, your theory is if one cannot achieve perfection then might as well
go to hell, eh?

No, just that there's little point in being unhappy that we haven't achieved
perfection.

By virtue of happenstance one may or may not perceive 'precisely equal
benefit' from each and every service but one can observe whether
they're specifically 'targeted' or deliberately excluded and whether
someone else is.

Well, in the U.S. various services certainly are specifically targeted or
excluded from various groups or individuals, but this is done on some (often
highly subjective) basis of being "fair."

The more your argument applies the more it means government should
simply not be 'in that business' to begin with.

Logically I agree with you, but pragmatically I just don't see such a
government as viable in today's society.

I suppose that's kinda what it boils down to... I consider myself a
pragmatist, and while I do have great respect for the founding fathers and the
constitution, I'm OK with considering their words and the document "living."

I'm probably a bit of a moral relativist too. :-)

Taxes, for 'transferring wealth': monies levied under the notion that
some people have too much so it should be extorted and given to others
(voluntary giving by the owner is called "charity."). You put in,
someone else gets it, and you get nothing for your efforts.
Some people derive some psychic income from it...
That won't buy a pack of bubble gum.

True, although if I really stretch the argument perhaps it'll save them from
the cost of treating an ulcer? :-)

OK, that's not really a serious argument -- I doubt very many people get as
much psychic income from being taxed a dollar (and assuming it goes to good
cause) than do people who are able to donate a dollar to the charity of their
choice.

Retirement: monies socked away (invested) during productive years for
future income after one is unable to work. You put in and (if you live
long enough) you get back.
After one is unable to work?
That was the reason for the concept.

Interesting, I didn't know that...

In both cases,. however, you're 'disabled': one by nature and the
other by 'social planner' policy.

Those Frenchies are really up in arms that their official retirement age has
been raised from 60 to 62, you know.

You're just rich enough to
chose to work or not and that could be said at any time in life,
including if you simply inherited enough to be a member of "the idle
rich."

Hmm, good point.

You also seem to ignore what you *are* told. As to the 'poor' the
clearly stated reason, by some, is "society owes" them and the rest
(only the rich if you're shooting for votes) "have an obligation." But
if you object we'll call it charity. Oh, wait, that would be voluntary
so it isn't. Ok, we'll call it 'insurance'.

See, the point is to call it something you'll like because you might
not like what it is.

Yes, this is "spin control." It's really just an "entitlement," but of course
politicians avoid that word because it has a lot of baggage -- as does "taxes"
(especially "tax cut" or "tax hike"), but not so much "insurance."

I agree with you there. It's a fine line being being very direct with
people
and trying to sugarcoat or "spin" a policy you're pushing, but clearly at
some
point the later degrades into outright mispresentation and becomes morally
questionable. As a group most politicians seem to place their "morality
line"
far further out than you or I would...
What happened to "I think a lot fewer people are deliberately
deceptive than is generally believed?"

What I'm saying is that many a politician seems to be able to engage in what
might appear to be deceptive when, in actuality, their morals are really just
looser than mine. I realize that's a slippery-slope argument (lots of
criminals will claim they didn't think they were doing anything wrong), but I
try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton was clearly being dishonest there
I agree but using your own gray blobs in a gray fog logic he can
theoretically 'justify' to himself the 'technical accuracy' of what he
said.

I expect you're correct. What I'm saying up there is that Clinton was clearly
being dishonest in my (gray fog logic -- I like that phrase!) opinion; I can
accept that (at least at the time) he might not have felt he was behaving
badly. ...but clearly the house of representatives didn't believe him either!

Why did you clip and ignore where I told you the new definition?

The one about carbon footprints?

I think a lot of the carbon footprint stuff is just mumbo-jumbo.

It begins, of course, with the premise of 'man made climate change' so
I suggest you look for the "scientific" validation of the conjecture.

Indeed, AGW is clearly a very hot potato item right now -- look at its
popularity here on SED! I tend to lean towards the side that the man-made
"input" is likely nowhere near as large as most AGW supporters believe, but I
also readily admit that (1) I'm not at all an authority on the matter nor do I
really care to want to take the time to become one and (2) my stance is
definitely the "easier" one in that it doesn't imply drastic changes in the
economy and my lifestyle (as "cap and trade" might), so I tend to have a
natural bias to not want to believe it.

I also like John Larkin's point that the implicit supposition that "climate
change is always bad" needs to be questioned; some parts of the economy
clearly benefit if we, e.g., warm up the planet a bit.

AGW proponents do a terrific job of explaining, in excruciating
detail, what the conjecture is but the argument boils down to "we
believe therefore it is" and that's not "science" regardless of how
much data you collect and how many numbers you crunch.

It could qualify as a "soft science" in the same vein that, e.g., astronomy or
archaeology do: The time scales involved are so huge that you can't really do
any direct experiments, but perhaps you can do experiments or make predictions
on a smaller scale and demonstrate something useful. E.g., feed the climate
data up to (only) the year 2000 into your computer models and then see how
well it models 2000-2010...

In 2008 the people voted for, as we have been told over and over,
"change." Well, hell, that can be anything. Going bankrupt will be a
'change' but I am not convinced that's what they voted for nor am I
convinced they intended to make Pelosi 'Queen'.

"Change" is a popular wildcard at times -- 2008 was essentially the devil you
knew vs. the devil you didn't know, and the later won out.

There isn't any with regard to Jefferson. Madison, Franklin, et al
and, as I already mentioned, their scope of government is considerably
simpler than explaining 'all things'.

Didn't the freemasons or some other secret society slip a few changes into the
constitution while Jefferson and friends weren't looking?

Oops, no, sorry -- I've been taking those National Treasure movies too
seriously... :-)

You're on the brink of discovering why they call for "world
governance."

Hmm, yes, I see what you mean.

But our system is founded on the principle that political power, when
granted by the people, should be exercised as close to the people as
possible. As such, local, city, county, State, and Federal governments
have different powers and responsibilities with the Federal government
having the *least*, which will come as a surprise to many.

....especially when they look at the size of their state tax return vs. their
federal tax return...

To wit, the 'they' called States do have the power to require
insurance as a prerequisite for use of the public roads but the 'they'
called the Federal government was never granted the power to mandate
EITHER auto insurance OR health insurance.

Did the federal government have the power to impose the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act which is what compels hospitals to provide
emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay, legal status, or
citizenship?

---Joel