Text 14123, 240 rader
Skriven 2007-04-27 19:59:57 av Carl (486.babylon5)
Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: Finesse contest finalists - thanks to all!
==========================================================
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61b033l054top21mn6qcbf17bukd4d4ha9@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:47:48 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:dmsq23tca6f4havp3aj8ekqn6motcpoeo1@4ax.com...
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:03:48 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>***** Note, my newsreader isn't adding '>'s this time. ******
>>>
>>>I tend to think that the percentage of @$$holes in the world is
>>>probably constant throughout history. These days countries have
>>>a stronger legal infrastructure than ever before to restrict the
>>>@$$holes.
>>>
>>>**************************************
>>[my text snipped to avoid quoting confusion]
>>
>>I'm not sure if that's true. Historically, there have been kindly
>>cultures and warlike, predatory ones. I don't know that the latter
>>would consider themselves less moral, but I think most of us would
>>characterize them that way. So I think the statistical baseline can
>>vary by society. And if that's the case, it can also potentially vary
>>with time. I believe that Republican government, with all its flaws,
>>and its cousin, modern welfare-state capitalism, with all /its/ flaws,
>>lead to a society that becomes increasingly caring, if for no other
>>reason than that some degree of enfranchisement is granted to those
>>who would be powerless in an autocratic society.
>>
>>[Me:]
>>
>>
>>I'm not sure that's true. If given the choice to pay taxes for social
>>programs or not, how many people would choose not to? I'm not one of them
>>(contrary to what you might think), but I believe more than a few that
>>would. It would be an interesting exercise if there was a national
>>questrionaire in which everyone indicated the percentage of taxes that
>>should be given for social programs, courts, prisons, the mail, defense,
>>foreign aid, etc.
>
> On the basis of opinion surveys, I don't think most people know enough
> to offer an even vaguely informed opinion. They get their information
> from political propagandists instead. People say that taxes are too
> high, but when you ask them whether they think we should spend enough
> money to provide the benefits and services that take the lion's share
> of the taxes, they say we should. So it's not that people don't care,
> it's that they've been misled.
I don't think that's true. I think people recognize that they're being
bombarded
by propaganda on both sides. Anyone that thinks ot's onlyt the other side
that's pitching propaganda has been completely taken in by they side they
sympathize towards.
When kept vague and fuzzy, people always take a sentence like "should we
pay higher taxes for children, or essential services," etc. then they
mentally fill
in whatever issue is important to them and assume you're talking about that.
Pick a specific issue though, and usually those surveys change.
Another example of that is the latest poll over presidential candidates.
The initial question was "Are you more inclined to vote for a Democrat
or Republican in the next presidential election."
A clear preference weas given for Democrats.
Those same people were asked about specific candidates
(Gulianni and McCain) and in all instances both Gulianni
and McCain were preferred over each Democratic.
One thing that always strike me is that those advocating
higher taxes never get specific. It's always "More!"
Democrats never get specific point for what "wealthy" means. Sure, they
mention Bill Gates, but when it comes to setting an point, it's always
*much* lower than than even the million dollar mark.
Give the same survery to people making 100K a year and tell them that 67K a
year is defined as rich and see if you get the same answers. I doubt it.
How much is enough? How much of someone else's wealth can you rationalize
stealing? How can you come up with anything other than completely arbitrary
value to tax?
>>Consider the inner cities... areas with increased difficulties in life
>>also
>>have increased violence, murder, theft, etc. If your theory was correct,
>>wouldn't people that can vote, receive public assistance, etc... also feel
>>this increased moral awakening?
>
> I don't think that happens because the lives of the underclass are too
> harsh, and because there's a correlation between emotional instability
> and ability on one hand and poverty on the other.
And yet the fact that their lives are sio harsh is often given as the reason
for such behavior.
Growing up I knewing a number of people of very limited means. Some got out,
some didn't (last I heard). I only knew a few that had problems that
prevented them from working (usually because of drugs). I only knew one
person that couldn't work. I knew them sufficiently well that I find I'm
having a difficult time generalizing their experiences.
I will consider this more before I reply.
<snip>
>>
>>That doesn't mean anything if the new wealth doesn't go to most of the
>>people in our society, but rather to the tiny fraction who don't need
>>it. And that, in essence, has been what's been happening. Compare the
>>period of the liberal ascendancy from Roosevelt through Johnson or so,
>>in which not only did our national income grow much faster than it has
>>during the conservative years, but the benefits went to everybody,
>>from the rich to the poor.
>>
>>^^^^^
>>I'm sorry... did I miss utopia? My parents never told me there was heaven
>>on Earth! I never realized that the poor didn't exist and suddenly
>>spontaneously generated after LBJ left office. The poverty rate was zero
>>back then (instead of the same rate it is now)? Wow, who would have
>>thought
>>all those statistics were just completely wrong?
>>
>>[Removing a lot of my own response since I'm not trying to bait you into a
>>heated conversation.
>>We could argue stats all week, but let's not.]
>
> Carl, LBJ's Great Society programs resulted in a massive and
> /permanent/ reduction in poverty. Things got better for /everyone/
> during the liberal years. And then the progress stopped during the
> conservative years for everyone except the wealthy. And that's not a
> matter of opinion, personal or otherwise: it's dry, documented fact.
> I've posted some of the figures here in the past and if necessary I
> can do so again.
The following books:
The Roosevelt Myth by John Flynn
FDR's Folly by Jim Powell
and
Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Centruy America
by Richard Vedder and Lowell E Gallaway
come to different conclusions
Moreover, recall that there were rather large tax increases and Hoover
vastly increased spending on public works projects.
You should also recall that under FDR, unemployment averaged 18% from 1933
to 1940.
FDR first proposed paying farmers to reduce production or at times grow
nothing at all. He wanted to increase prices by decreasing supply. To
that end he decided to deal with excess supply of food... not by giving it
to starving people, but by destroying it. Six million pigs and ten million
acres of cotton were destroyed when the poor could have used them.
FDR wanted to federally control what crops farmers could grow,a nd how much.
When the Supreme Court struck down his agricultural program, he replied:
"Are we going to take the ferderal government completely off any effort to
adjust the growing of national crops, and go right back to the old principle
that every farmer is a lord of his own farm and can do anything, any old
time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants?"
The idea that he wanted a government that controlled crop production, and
considered the crops "national crops" and apparently had a problem with
personal property could certainly lead one to believe he was rather
socialist.
He declared att he time time that the Supreme Court's reading of the
constitution was appropriate only to the "horse and buggy days." That's
when he wanted to take over the Supreme Court.
You might find interesting reading what the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote
on FDRs plan at the time. Let's just say they thought he was dangerous.
One paragram ends:
"It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel
will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people
of America."
Of course these days this is never included in the propaganda about FDR.
In 1936, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics reported that with some cases
such as cotton, farm income would have been at least as high and probably
higher had FDR stayed out of it.
At the time, James Boyle of Cornell University wrote int eh Atlantic that
the AAA had been *responsible* for the joblessness of at least 2 million
Americans. He noted that in many cases Farmers were worse off because of
the National Recover Administration.
Alas, the subsidies that FDR started are still with us.
As to how wonderful FDRs programs were, why is it that the South (where
people were poorest) received the least assistance from FDRs WPA? Instead,
the money was distributed to the west, where his electoral margins were the
thinnest. A number of FDR researchers, (Gavin Wright, John Wallace, Jim
Crouch, William Shughart) found a direct correlation between political needs
and New Deal spending. The estimate was that 80% of the spending was
politically motivated.
It should also be noted that there was a Senate committe that found
significant improper influence and corruption to aid in FDRs re-election
too.
The economy got better not because of FDRs policies, but despite them. It
wasn't until 11 million people were added to the military that things got
better.
Even if you ignore what he did to the Japanese, what he did to the Russian
POWs was disgusting. He sold out 1 million anti-communist Russians POWs
that the British and US troops had rescued. He tricked, coerced or drugged
and shipped back to these men against their will. Look up Operation
Keelhaul. He loaded Russians up at gunpoint. Some were tear-gassed and
drugged and forced onto Soviet ships that took them home even though many
were committing suicide rather than go back and be executed.
The New Deal was certainly the Raw Deal for these men.
FDR's concept of freedom was as limited as his idea of capitalism.
Unfortunately you have to dig to get past the idealistic propaganda to find
out what a tyrant FDR really was.
I'm done with this right now. After being reminded of this stuff I need to
walk away from this discussion and take a shower. Perhaps some time in the
future we can pick it up again.
Carl
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|