Flavors of Capitalism vs. the sound bite society

[Stevicus]

And so much more was going on to give us economic advantages.....
- Destroyed foreign competitors
- Lax health, safety, & environmental regulation
- More advanced technologies than other countries

Then all we have to do is wait for our foreign competitors to start another war with each other, and then we'll be back on top again. That's really the best reason for the US to step back and stay out of global affairs.

 

[dianaiad]

I addressed that point, but I will address it again later on in this post.



Well, if you're using those surveys in post #43 as your sole basis for saying this, then even your own surveys say that liberals do give something, even if it's not as much as conservatives. So, you can't say that liberals do absolutely nothing.

I never said that they do nothing. I WROTE that conservatives to more. As to 'skinflint,' etc., I was addressing that group of liberals who do the hypocritical thing. Since more liberals qualify for that than do conservatives, that could be a problem. I have also, remember, stated that I honor those liberals who give of their own money and time and still proclaim that taxes should be higher, etc., I figure that they have 'bought' the right to say so.

Even if they are dead wrong about it

But as I said, it's also about attitude and what policies they support or oppose. I already explained that above, and your only response was a single word: "Obviously." So, unless you have something more, my point stands.

OK. to what, precisely, did I respond 'obviously' to? I don't think it was to what you think it was...but I could be wrong. Care to give us a quote or a link?

Are there studies which show that where taxes are high, private contributions are low?

Actually, all the studies I've found in the last few minutes say that when taxes are high, donations are also high...AS LONG AS THERE ARE DEDUCTIONS FOR CHARITABLE GIVING. The conclusion reached in most of 'em is that the reason charitable donations are matched with the level of deductions is because without those deductions, nobody would have the money TO donate.

From what I can tell, states with higher taxes tend to have higher standards of living, better social services, better education, etc.

Citations, please?

If the government does stuff the taxpayers don't want, then the people have the option of voting them out and replacing them with different people. If the voters don't do that, then that's on the voters.

Only if the majority agrees with them. There are no personal choices available.

In the case of private charities, voters don't have that option. All they can do is simply not donate, but then you might accuse them of being "skinflints."

'the people' do NOT have the choice here....and studies have shown that when taxpayers are offered the chance to earmark their funds for areas they approve of, they are far more willing to pay taxes....even more taxes. Individual contributors do have that choice. They can choos 'not to donate.' However, if they choose to 'not donate' to one charity, they can take their money and give it to someone else. Taxpayers here in the US don't have that option...and it seems that liberals, to a really uncomfortable degree, just 'don't donate.' It's not that they 'donate elsewhere," they just 'don't donate."

....and then those who don't donate to anybody call conservatives skinflints.

Yes, I'm aware of these charity watch organizations, and I agree that people would be wise to investigate charities before donating. That's just good common sense.



Except that pretty much every eye of the media is focused on government and one can get much more information on the government than they can about any private sector organization.

Also, people get to vote for those who run the government, so there's plenty of choices there. (Granted, they're generally not very good choices, but that's our political system. We, the People, can change it if we want.) [/uote]

Like 'we the people' had any say in that star chamber thing the House just pulled off?

Well, by the same token, one can also research the issues and the politicians they vote for. But if the voters are too stupid to do that, then I guess that's the way it goes.

Errrggghhh...

The individual voter really doesn't have a huge say in a federal election. He has a LOT more say in a local one, but even then he's only one in several hundred, no matter how much research he might do. On the other hand, with private charities she has ABSOLUTE control over where her money goes.

I don't put much stock in the notion that the private sector is always more efficient or that government is somehow always inefficient. I think it varies, depending on what task either is doing. One difference with government is that, in many cases, they are mandated to help all who qualify for aid. Private charities have the option of being more selective and focused.

Both the private and public sector are susceptible to corruption. People are still people, after all, no matter if they work in the public or private sector.

Depends entirely on what the issue is. Government SHOULD be in charge of infrastructure, the military, the monetary system, the courts...

Not that they are all THAT efficient, mind you.

But when one is speaking of 'social issues,' like welfare, etc., the government isn't anywhere near as efficient as many charities. Remember my story of the healthcare my daughter has, vs the system I have? there can be no comparison between my private system and the public one she's stuck with.

If the private sector could carry the weight of all the poor and needy in this country, there wouldn't be any need for government to do it at all.

This is true. However, it is ALSO true that people would have more money to contribute to those private systems if they didn't have to pay outlandish taxes for stupid things.

Like health insurance for the unemployed that costs $700 per month and doesn't kick in until after that person has spent $3000 first.

That's one of the things that I've noticed conservatives routinely overlook in these discussions. They seem to believe that government social programs, the welfare state, "free stuff from other people's money" just happened out of the blue for no reason at all. All of these things were introduced and implemented slowly, mainly in order to fill a need which had not been previously fulfilled - or was done very poorly. All our labor laws, minimum wages, Social Security, and other programs implemented by government - they were non-existent in the 19th century.

Any conservative who can do the research into our nation's history would understand that all of these programs they criticize have a historical basis for their initial implementation.



Yes, I'd be happy to show you. In post #45, this is what you wrote:



You say "taking the conservative's money by force," but as I keep saying, taxes apply to all. It would have been more accurate to say "taking the Americans' money by force," since all of us Americans are subject to taxation by the US government. But you didn't say that. You just said "conservative's money." Your exact words are quoted above.

By using this phraseology, you're clearly implying that only conservatives have their money taken by force through taxation, while non-conservatives (by implication) are not forced to do so, apparently.

The difference is that the libs expect the conservatives to CONTINUE to give themselves, personally, even after being taxed. The libs I speak of figure that paying their taxes is all they need to do.

In the same quoted portion above, you stated that liberals want to be in charge of where conservatives' tax money goes.

They absolutely do. It's about power.

This implies that conservatives would have no say in our government, that they would be somehow blocked out of the process and that liberals would run everything.

Well, yeah, that is precisely what the libs want. If it were not, this impeachment circus wouldn't have happened.

This suggests some kind of "liberal dictatorship" where conservatives would be some kind of victimized underclass, at least from the way you're portraying the situation.

Yep. We ARE being called 'the deporables,' and stupid, and having lives ruined because we dare to wear a stupid hat....

I never said I didn't approve. What's that you were saying about arguing against points one didn't make?

I'm only suggesting that there could be other motives involved, or other possible explanations as to why those studies show that conservatives give more than liberals, since much of your line of argumentation seems to rest solely on that.

Look. You guys demand studies and citations. Don't get P'O'd because I actually give them to you. ...and 'relying on' studies like that is called 'relying on objective data."

Other than that, most of what you're arguing is anecdotal. Within any group, you'll find good ones and bad ones. I absolutely believe you when you say there are generous and compassionate conservatives, and I also fervently believe there are skinflint, heartless liberals out there.

But you can find both types within both groups. [/qipte]

more skinflint heartless liberals than there are generous and compassionate conservatives, according to objective evidence and studies by, er...everybody....

I don't know that that actually proves anything, since liberals and conservatives are mainly judged and evaluated according to their political views, not necessarily their personality traits - unless we're talking about a public figure. If we're talking about Average Joe Liberal or Average Joe Conservative, it's more of a mixed bag. Not everyone goes straight down the line "liberal" or "conservative" every issue. Some might be more liberal when it comes to domestic policies while being more conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Some might be more liberal when it comes to social causes, while still being more conservative when it comes to economic and fiscal policies.

You leading up to a 'no true liberal' thing? Or would that be a 'no true Conservative?"



they won't allow me to do the whole post in one, so wait for part two...

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, and as with anything, many are reputable, but some are not.

One point of difference between liberals and conservatives is not so much about who spends whose money on what. It's about looking at the sources and roots of the problem and attacking it in that way, not just the symptoms.

And you think the government does that?

Some cities in California figure that they are solving the homeless problem by giving them tents and a train ticket to my city. How is that 'looking at the sources and roots of the problem?"

At least in terms of the overall debate between liberals and conservatives as I've seen all my life, that seems to be a key difference. I'll concede that liberals in recent years have gotten a bit superficial and flighty, but at least in a more traditional sense, liberals have advocated looking at problems rationally, determining the cause, and advocating solutions by attacking the source of the problem.

Well, I'll have to take your word for that, because quite frankly, I don't see it.

Conservatives typically don't do that. Oftentimes, they don't recognize the same "problems" that liberals might see - or they may not understand them until it's too late. They're slow and resistant to change, and they tend to take a "these things happen" approach to problem solving.

That may be another reason why liberals donate less to charities, since charities only really deal with symptoms, while the liberals may be more focused on finding long-term solutions.

(snort) Not even a little bit.

The conservative groups I get involved with want to address the homeless problem by finding jobs and housing...oh, and getting really unhappy with the LIBERALS who have closed all the mental health hospitals.

the liberals give 'em tents and send 'em here.

Dunno about you, but I know which group I think is addressing the core problem.

 

[Augustus]

Well sound bites are sound bites, so "resonance" is important. I kind of thought that invoking a GOP president might resonate.

It really needs to strike more of an emotional resonance and a soundbite that requires a complex explanation before it makes sense to most people sort of defeats its own purpose.

(BTW, HNY Augustus!)

HNY too

 

[Stevicus]

I never said that they do nothing. I WROTE that conservatives to more. As to 'skinflint,' etc., I was addressing that group of liberals who do the hypocritical thing. Since more liberals qualify for that than do conservatives, that could be a problem. I have also, remember, stated that I honor those liberals who give of their own money and time and still proclaim that taxes should be higher, etc., I figure that they have 'bought' the right to say so.

Even if they are dead wrong about it

Then it seems the group you're addressing must be very small or quite hypothetical.

OK. to what, precisely, did I respond 'obviously' to? I don't think it was to what you think it was...but I could be wrong. Care to give us a quote or a link?

Yes, in post #49, look for the word "Obviously" and see the part quoted above it. It might be easier if you'd trim your quotes and only include that which you're responding to.

My only point there was to explain that the reasons conservatives are often thought of as heartless or skinflints was largely due to their publicly-stated attitudes when it comes to debates over economic systems, social services, and helping the poor and disadvantaged in society. You seem to believe that it's all based in a dollar amount (who gives more) and nothing else, but I don't agree with that perception.

Just as one example, when a capitalist heroine like Leona Helmsley says "only the little people pay taxes," then it's obvious where capitalists stand on the issue. They have nothing but utter contempt for the "little people," and this shows through in everything they say and do.

In the final analysis, the dollar amount of how much conservatives "give" is beside the point. If they view the poor and downtrodden as "lesser" than them or inferior human beings, then they're missing the point entirely.

Liberals see it differently because they tend to be egalitarians who view people as equals. The money given to the poor is for basic human survival, because they are humans and have a right to live. They should not be viewed as helpless animals being thrown a bone. That's the key issue, not necessarily "who gives more," which is what you keep focusing on.

Actually, all the studies I've found in the last few minutes say that when taxes are high, donations are also high...AS LONG AS THERE ARE DEDUCTIONS FOR CHARITABLE GIVING. The conclusion reached in most of 'em is that the reason charitable donations are matched with the level of deductions is because without those deductions, nobody would have the money TO donate.

Aren't there always deductions for charitable giving?

Citations, please?

It's a generalized observation. Just as an example, the states with the highest taxation (NY and CA) have much better education systems and social services than a lower taxed state like AZ. This is what I have personally seen. States along the Gulf Coast also have low taxes, and they're practically like third world countries.

Even Trump has talked about the dilapidated infrastructure and similar deficiencies throughout the country. That's because for the past 30-40 years, we've been engaging in low-tax, borrow-and-spend policies with no thought to the future.

The purported theory behind lowering taxes is that it was supposed to have encouraged greater investment, which would have led to more jobs and opportunities in America (the old "trickle down" theory). Trouble was, the wealthy did not use these windfalls to invest in America. Instead they invested overseas and/or put their money in offshore accounts.

So, as I see it, the conservative capitalists have had their way for all this time, and they still can't make the economy work. That's the best reason for changing the economic system, since it's been proven that if capitalists get their way, they'll drive the economy into the ground, as they've done here in America. They had their chances, they've had more than a few opportunities to prove that their ideas are viable, and yet, all they have to show for it is failure.

In contrast, Keynesian economics of the kind practiced by FDR, Truman, and others - these policies already have a track record of resounding success. This is part of the historical record.

Only if the majority agrees with them. There are no personal choices available.

I would agree that the government needs to be more accountable to the people, but I'm not sure what you mean by "no personal choices available." Our political system is what it is, but we can change it if we really want to.

'the people' do NOT have the choice here....and studies have shown that when taxpayers are offered the chance to earmark their funds for areas they approve of, they are far more willing to pay taxes....even more taxes. Individual contributors do have that choice. They can choos 'not to donate.' However, if they choose to 'not donate' to one charity, they can take their money and give it to someone else. Taxpayers here in the US don't have that option...and it seems that liberals, to a really uncomfortable degree, just 'don't donate.' It's not that they 'donate elsewhere," they just 'don't donate."

....and then those who don't donate to anybody call conservatives skinflints.

But liberals tend to advocate for higher taxes which reduce the need for anyone to donate.

But there may be another aspect of this which might be explored. There may be some underlying dissatisfaction and resentment at the idea that there are people in this society who need help - and should be taken care of by the State - yet are somehow forced to survive by the kindness and charity of others. Nobody should be in that kind of situation - not in America. The State has an obligation to take care of them. They should not have to live off handouts like beggars in the street.

 

[Stevicus]

And you think the government does that?

No, not really, but they have the greater obligation. It's up to the people to make sure that they fulfill that obligation, but the people are divided and constantly squabbling with each other - just as we're doing now.

Some cities in California figure that they are solving the homeless problem by giving them tents and a train ticket to my city. How is that 'looking at the sources and roots of the problem?"

That sounds like a conservative NIMBY solution to the problem.

Well, I'll have to take your word for that, because quite frankly, I don't see it.

It's an idea that seemed more prevalent when I was younger; not so much nowadays.

(snort) Not even a little bit.

The conservative groups I get involved with want to address the homeless problem by finding jobs and housing...oh, and getting really unhappy with the LIBERALS who have closed all the mental health hospitals.

Actually, that was Reagan.

But yeah, the mental health system is in dire need of improvement. There's no mistaking that. I'm not sure if it's just a money problem, that not enough is being spent - or if it's more of a philosophical or design flaw in how society approaches the issue.

However, I would also suggest that addressing the homeless problem by "finding jobs and housing" would still be only a surface level solution which only treats the symptoms and doesn't really cure the problem. A better approach might be to examine the reasons why they're homeless in the first place. That's a far more complex issue which requires greater thought, research, and study.

A lot of it may be mental health issues - addiction, alcoholism, or some other malady, and we should focus more on treatment than prisons or punishment. But people who have a "war on drugs" mentality fight against that and gum up the works. Then there are others who seem to have some kind of phobia or prejudice against mentally ill people in general.

the liberals give 'em tents and send 'em here.

Dunno about you, but I know which group I think is addressing the core problem.

Are you sure they are liberals who are doing that? I'm not necessarily doubting you, but I'm just curious as to how/why you'd classify them as liberals if they do something like that.

In my view, the "liberals" of today bear very little resemblance to the liberals of previous eras. FDR, JFK, RFK - those were liberals. I never really considered the Clintons to be liberals, although by that time, the Democratic Party had become fully Reaganized. Personally, I've probably gone further to the left than most liberals these days, although I do respect some of the earlier liberals.

 

[wellwisher]

I saw a PBS special the other night about the "Guilded Age". And I've been reading about various forms of capitalism only one of which is based on the idea that those who are rich are Darwinian survivors while the poor are losers.

But when the right starts yelling "socialism" at any attempt to aide the poor, the chance of a reasonable discussion almost vanishes.

Socialism does not aid the poor in the long term. It is really about using the poor as pawns to overthrow Capitalism, so the capitalists lose their power, and the politicians are unopposed, so they can control everything. Then the decline begins where promises made are not kept. This is the sad history of Socialism; Venezuela. Socialism is the Siren's sound of the Left ,that sucks in the unexpected sailors.

Capitalism does not to mean war or survival of the fittest. In its best form, it more like a sports competition. When everyone plays fair, it leads to what is called the America dream. In sports, you do not die if you lose a game. You may feel sad, but you go home, lear from your mistakes, practice more and play again tomorrow. This is possible in the USA became of it's founding Judeo-Christian values. A moral standard by the athletes of capitalism makes it possible for people to play without cheating, so sports becomes a fun challenge for all and and does not turn into war.

The dark side of capitalism; war model, is often associated with lobbyist using government to cheat in the sport of capitalism. This can rig the game, so it is no longer a game, but a struggle for survival.

For example, if government increases regulations, that require hired experts to fill in paperwork, this handicaps the mom and pop capitalist sport teams. It is designed of help big corp cheat, since they have the manpower and can easily absorb the added tasks. The analogy is regulating pick up sports with the same laws as professional sports, whose athletes are millionaires. A $10,000 fine to a professional may hurt, but to a pick up sports enthusiast this fine means he may never be able to play again. This type of cheating is common among the godless Progressive.

Trump has tried to get Big Government regulation out of it, since Big Business pays Big Government donations, to help it cheat and kill the upcoming competition. Then the left blames capitalism and not Big Government so it can cheat via socialism. If we reduce and regulate regulation, you cut down on cheating and return capitalism to the sportsmen; small business expands. The warriors retire.

 

[Estro Felino]

I miss Reagan...I miss that time...
Back when my country's blind loyalty to the United States was really appreciated in the WH.

But globalists had something else in their mind...to create an European superstate called EU to destroy the several countries...and Craxi and Thatcher were an obstacle to those madmen's evil project.

 

[metis]

Socialism does not aid the poor in the long term.

And socialism evolved out of the ills of capitalism that left the poor destitute and with no safety net. Socialism was and is the "cure", not the "disease" that necessitated the "cure". Today, every single country uses a mixture of both since either extreme tends to lead to serious problems, thus all are what we call "mixed economies".

For example, if government increases regulations, that require hired experts to fill in paperwork, this handicaps the mom and pop capitalist sport teams.

Regulations are almost always passed for a problem that needs fixing. The only serious question is whether the fix is still needed? This is why I prefer using the Scandinavian approach with what are called "sunshine laws", which come up for renewal, alteration, or elimination every X number of years.

Trump has tried to get Big Government regulation out of it, since Big Business pays Big Government donations, to help it cheat and kill the upcoming competition.

Both big government and big business are problems, which is why I prefer a more "distibutism" approach that emphasizes more emphasis on local government and local businesses.

 

[dianaiad]

No, not really, but they have the greater obligation. It's up to the people to make sure that they fulfill that obligation, but the people are divided and constantly squabbling with each other - just as we're doing now.



That sounds like a conservative NIMBY solution to the problem.

Los Angeles (and indeed, most of coastal California) hasn't been run by conservatives for a very long time now. Indeed, it is a pretty typical Liberal "I want the power and the votes and to hell with solving the problem" solution.