• You may be right that some family businesses may be exceptions.  But I'm not convinced that "those kids that do not deserve what is handed down to them will know in their hearts that they don't deserve it."  And I think a lot of them are pretty content, though maybe not truly happy.  

  • Fair enough.  I think there is at least some detrimental effect in having taxes too high.  I just haven't seen any proof of where that percentage is.  Also, I'd be content having 99% estate taxes (or some more appropriate high percentage).  I know there would be all sorts of ways around it through giving gifts and trusts and all that, but I'd support it anyway.

    Wealthy and middle class parents already give plenty (and not just money) to their kids when they are alive.  That's how it should be.  Hopefully they give access to technology, a critical worldview, and the support to try things and (potentially) fail.  Why should they also give them millions of dollars or huge houses or land or, even though conservatives hate this, the family business?  The kids should have to buy the family business.

  • "There is no proof it is better, cheaper and can even function without the US system being in the quasi private sector."

    This is a great point for us to examine our differences.  It is going to sound terrible to conservatives and classical liberals alike, but I'm willing to trade more fairness in exchange for less efficiency.  

    For example, I'm willing to say that people should all have the same health/medical opportunities.  If that means everyone is going to have inefficient health care, so be it.  That is probably one way to get the wealthy to actually care about making it better.  As of right now, they don't care, because they can just buy their way into their own system.

    And I don't hate wealthy people or their wealth; I just want people to realize that it is often inherited and often based on having a wealthy or upper middle class family.  I come from an upper middle class family and got advantages that other people don't.  To me, that's not fair.  And I think we need to do more to make it more fair.  Not 100% fair maybe, and not 100% equal certainly, but more than it is now.

  • I'm not sure that a proportionate amount of people DO go to college out of bad areas.  And conservatives (not you) like to point out a half dozen examples here or there and say that means everything is working as it should.  They did the same thing under Reagan, finding a couple examples of welfare queens and then saying that means everyone on welfare is gaming the system.  

    I don't know think we're really arguing.  I do think the education system is absolutely broken, though, and I also think that conservatives have a vested interest in keeping it broken because they want their kids (and only their kids) going to great schools and everyone else going to crap schools.

  • http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1227055,00.html

  • I'm talking specifically about Fortune 500 CEOs.  And it has nothing to do with a diploma.  I know Bill Gates is no longer the CEO, but he did not have a diploma so people point to him as "pulling himself up by his bootstraps."  Bullshit.  He was born and raised in a middle or upper middle class family, he had a family and school affluent enough to give him access to new technology.

    And I agree that Democrats are not aggressive enough in fixing schools.  Their biggest problem is their total unwillingness to recognize that property taxes funding schools perpetuates the cycle of great schools in wealthy areas and crappy schools in wealthy areas.

    And here are the Fortune 50 CEOs' colleges from 2006.  My point isn't that they all went to amazing colleges; my point is that they went to college at all.  Many students have little chance of going to college because of terrible high schools not effectively educating them.  If anyone wants to cross reference these with college rankings, I'd be interested.  Maybe I'll have time later today.

  • Oops, forgot the link.  Here's the first source I found.  I'm sure there are others that are just as good.

    http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-previ ew.axd?code=r526785787407003&size=la rgest

  • The whole "proof" that tax cuts stimulate the economy is based entirely on Reagan.  So let's tackle that.  It may have stimulated the economy as a whole, but it screwed everyone that was not wealthy.  The bottom three quintiles lost income under Reagan, while the top two gained substantially.  If all we want is generic economic growth, then yes tax cuts may be able to provide that.  But it also brings with it widening income disparity.  And since wealthy people do not spend a high percentage of their money (and yes I know they invest it), it is less helpful to the economy.

  • We don't hold poor people to a lower standard.  What we do is recognize that the kid who grows up in an area where he has to be afraid for his life as he walks home from his dilapidated school (thanks to property taxes being the primary funding mechanism) and realizes that his only way out is crime has a .00001% chance of ever becoming a CEO of one of these corporations.  It's not for lack of trying or lack of smarts; it's because the system utterly failed him, put him at a huge disadvantage and told him to go to hell when he complained.  

    Ask yourself how many Fortune 500 CEOs (and politicians for that matter) grew up without all the advantages?  And that means growing up in an average high school or better with average crime rates or lower.  And then ask yourself how many CEOs went to crappy high schools.  I'm guessing the answer is zero.

  • "Unfortunately the the Democrats are no better for a classical liberal."

    I would actually agree with you there.

    As for "defense," I agree that the defense of our country should be our #1 priority.  Maybe we differ on what counts as "defense."  Iraq, unilateral support for Israel, money to Pakistan, presence in South Korea and Germany and Japan and Cuba do not count as defense in my book.

  • They also almost all support the drug war, reject euthanasia, and want the government forcing people to carry pregnancies to term (I'm unsure about Beck's and O'Reilly's stances on these).

    I don't like them because they are mean-spirited.  But libertarians should realize that when their positions happen to line up with your positions, it is only an accident.  They support bigger government when it is used to enforce Judeo-Christian values; they reject it when it is not used to enforce Judeo-Christian values.

  • "you think Bush limited government, but I really feel he grew government and centralized its power"

    Exactly my point.  Beck, Limbaugh, Levine, Coulter, Savage, and Malkin (and, to a lesser extent, O'Reilly) accepted every single one of Bush's expansions.  They all accepted and supported the Iraq War, even after it turned out to be a farce that was not based on sound intelligence.

    They all support DOMA (well, I'm not sure about O'Reilly).  

    They all support huge and bigger defense.

    Most of them reject embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds, not just the notion that government should not fund it.

    Most of them support torture as long as it is probably not on innocent people and and as long as it potentially brings in intelligence.

    They all support warrantless wiretaps.

    None of these policies are libertarian.  Now, I have no problem with them obstructing and fighting against liberal policies; that is what they are supposed to do.  What I do have a problem with is them suddenly all finding fiscal conservatism after 8 years of supporting huge federal deficits under Bush.  IOKIYAR, apparently.

  • I guess we'll have to see, then.  I'm sure Obama is thinking of contingency picks for SCOTUS.

  • Mark Levin and Michael Savage are scum.  They are terrible human beings.  They are mean-spirited, bigoted, and racist.  I don't generally agree with the Fairness Doctrine, but I'd be tempted to support it if it got these a-holes off the air.  I feel dirty just writing about them.  They would have made good Inquisitors 600 years ago.

  • I understand that you don't feel like you belong to either party.  I'm guessing that you are libertarian in most views (since that is what the original liberals were, mostly).  If so, I really do feel badly for you.  You've got Ron Paul, who is uncomfortably attached to the Republican Party, and that's about it.  

    I actually wish a true secular libertarian party was the rival of liberals, not the wacky fundie conservatives that are currently (sort of) running the GOP.  I don't agree with libertarians on much of anything, but I respect their principles a lot more than the "But the Bible says gays are sinners!" crap of Rush's listeners.  And I listen to Rush, and Hannity, and Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly fairly frequently (partly because the NPR station here is classical music all day) and they are no friend of yours if you are a libertarian.

    On a related note, you should consider the fact that not only are you allowed to have an account here and disagree with us, but we have all (I hope) been  respectful of you and your views.  If you disagree on RedState, you get blammed (banned) immediately.  Doesn't mean we are right about every issue, but at least we aren't mean-spirited.


Advertise Blogads