Say Anything Blog

I think it’s pathetic that we have allowed the propagandists to divide us into two groups with allegedly conflicting agendas.  If one is conservative, one naturally wants smaller govt, which means both fiscal and social conservativism.  You can’t be fiscally responsible and let the govt do social engineering.  Conservatives trust the voters, not judges, to express the will of society.  The more power that resides in govt, the less power is in the hands of the people.  There is no real division among conservatives, but some are trying really hard to create one.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

There really needs to be a little consideration given to the employees in these big corporations.  Regulation isn’t the answer but self-government is.  When a CEO and fellow execs walk away with millions while the retirements of the employees vanishes, there ain’t no self-governing going on… that is just pure greed. 

Self-governin ones own life requires a solid moral center and unfortunately in a relitivistic society that gets lost. 

Moral relativism just doesn’t work, not for government or society.

… that is just pure greed.

Actually, pure greed is wanting to support your lifestyle with other peoples’ money, like the welfare and political classes.

While it is a tempting to make a cause and effect relationship between CEO compensation and retirement funds, it just isn’t so. The retirement funds never really existed; they were predicated on the future health of the business, and increasing entitlement costs have generally wiped them out, not CEO compensation.  It’s funny that no one ever blames the excessively high wages paid to unionized workers for the problem, only the CEOs.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Huckabee signed the no new taxes pledge, he supports the FairTax, and he decreased taxes in Arkansas over 90 times.

I’ve heard his Main St./Wall St. talk before, but it doesn’t really bother me. I would like to hear him elaborate on it a little more as to why he thinks its wrong, but its not as if he’s advocating some sort of wealth redistribution. You have to remember that Reagan was not very conservative when he governed CA. If the Club for Growth was around in the 80s, they would have bashed him to bits as they are doing with Huckabee. Huckabee is a conservative and he’s a man of his word. He says he will sign a FairTax bill, and as far as taxes go, that is more than enough to satisfy me.

BOO BUSH. YAAY APPLES.

Matt, I’m not sure you understand what it means to be a conservative.  A nation-wide smoking ban and whatever “fitness” mandate he’s going to support are not conservative.

People with sense and who actually investigated these two candidates would know that they are not in the least alike.  Mike Huckabee is a conservative, social and fiscal, who has had to learn to communicate to audiences that are primarily left leaning.  He has throughout his time in governor passed 90 tax cuts including capitol gains in a state with a legislature at one time 90 % democrat.

Mike Huckabee has said that prosperity should NEVER be penalized.

He is for the FairTax, which is supposed to be bi partisan but I think favors the right wing more.

He knows that the best way to get a tax cut passed is too highlight how it benefits everyone no matter were they are at in the food chain.

Comparing sound bites that are out of context is disgusting and frankly amounts to libel.  It really sickens me that my fellow conservative would actually engage in a behavior of lying for political reasons, something I have always thought typical of the left wing.

Though Mike is far more willing to take a bullet on social conservatism and is stronger and more experienced in that area, he will be a president of Reagan’s caliber in evangelizing a country to conservatism in all areas and define the right wing movement for the new era.  Just as Reagan proved strong on social issue when he was running on fiscal issues, a look at Huckabee’s history of fighting for the American tax payer in a state dominated by a democrat monopoly will translate into a future of strong fiscal values.

S[peaking of which, Reagan broke election promises in California by immediately raising taxes by 1 billion.  State politics is a different monster than being a senator or even a president, one must sacrifice ideology when it comes time to settle on a budget.  You guys best keep this in mind before you try and carve up the strongest conservative in the race based on lies and half truths.

Probably not sound to take a quote out of its context and accuse Huckabee of being another John Edwards.  You have to take a look at how it’s implemented, as there are at least two obvious explanations.

First is the Edwards take; make laws that cap compensation, and tax the wazoo out of the rich.  Increase SEC funding to the point that no stockholder is willing to buy or sell.

Next is what I hope Huckabee means; stop giving out corporate welfare.  Whether we like it or not, hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually to promote the interests of big business, and those subsidies do tend to inflate executive compensation.  Examples include property tax breaks for new factories, “community redevelopment,” and such.  This kind of thing tends to favor those who can lobby for it--in other words, big business.

I’d be interested in seeing an explanation.

I’d be interested in seeing an explanation.

Generally speaking, politicians want to attract businesses to their area so that they can broaden their tax base.  Any taxes “deferred” are paid by the other taxpayers, and when the businesses are established, their tax rates usually increase, sometimes in order to give someone else a “break”, mostly for the purpose of buying votes.  You have to understand that politicians don’t give a crap about economic growth; they only care about being re-elected so that they can stay on the gravy train.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I was actually hoping for an explanation of which of the two theories, if either, Huckabee might actually hold. 

Agree for the most part with your point about tax breaks for large employers, though.  If only voters would see that they’re not getting more jobs, but rather taxing their barber and grocer to pay for the stock options of the executives who hired the lobbyists to get those perks.

...but rather taxing their barber and grocer to pay for the stock options of the executives who hired the lobbyists to get those perks.

That’s not how it works; once again, only govt has the power to tax, so the money goes to the politicians, not any executives in the private sector.  The lobbyists are made necessary by the appetite of govt for the wealth created by the productive class, and the executives are rewarded for making profits in spite of what the politicians confiscate from their companies.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

R*108, you’re confusing the means with the ends.  Certainly it is true that only government taxes, and politicians do get their grubby hands on the money.  And certainly executives do get rewarded for making a profit despite heavy demands by government in taxes and regulation.

However, that does not exclude the fact that when executives lobby for funds, that money does ultimately come largely from the middle class and even the poor, and it also does not exclude the fact that a good portion of that money does go to upper management, which lays a large claim on profits in any company.

In other words, it’s Robin Hood in reverse, and if Huckabee has plans to stop this kind of garbage, he has my full support.

However, that does not exclude the fact that when executives lobby for funds,Which have been drained from the private sector in the first place. that money does ultimately come largely from the middle class and even the poor,Absolutely false; the upper end of the income bracket, the top 10%, pays the vast majority of taxes. and it also does not exclude the fact that a good portion of that money does go to upper management, which lays a large claim on profits
in any company. Which they should, because they are largely responsible for those profits.

I’m not the one who is confused here.  It is the cooperation between labor and capital that produces prosperity, and govt is simply a parasite, feeding off of the productivity of others.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

No, the majority of tax revenues do come from the middle class, Robert, especially when you remember the sales tax, property taxes, and FICA.  Even the majority of income taxes comes from the middle class.

And even if it were not so, that doesn’t give executives the right to ask for a portion of it for their private businesses.  Sorry, but if I were to take $100 from Bill Gates without his permission, he would rightly call it theft.  The moral equation does not change if I do it via taxes and public benefits for myself.  The approval of my friends does not negate the Seventh Commandment!

And let’s be serious here; a big part of the huge tax burden people pay is the burden we have due to various forms of corporate welfare, and the burden grows faster than the benefit because of the bureaucrat’s cut and inherent inefficiency of this.

Again, Huckabee is all right with me if he wants to end charades like this.

Even the majority of income taxes comes from the middle class.

This is simply false.  I repeat, the top 10% pay the vast majority of income taxes, both on earned and investment income.  It’s a fact.
That is irrelevant to this particular argument, though.  Your populist argument is simply an appeal to class envy warfare.  Executives(a vague term, btw) claim no “right"(entitlement, in leftiespeak) to any money whatsoever; they negotiate for their compensation, and would not receive anything unless they were worth it, and more.
The vast majority of our tax burden is due to wasteful and useless social spending by the govt, which makes up about 2/3rds of our budget.

BTW, I am not a Huckabee supporter; I simply object to false information about economic matters.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Well, if you object to false information about economic matters, perhaps you should stop giving it out.  Here’s the data on who pays the federal income tax, for example:

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

I guarantee you that those earning in the top 10%, a threshold of only $145k, mostly consider themselves to be in the middle class.  Sorry, but even the income tax is mostly paid by the middle class.

And again, this ignores the fact that most of taxation is not on form 1040--FICA collects almost as much as the federal income tax, for example, and typical states collect only about 50% of their revenue in income taxes.

So again, when public money is given out for private enterprise, that is largely coming from the middle class, whether you like it or not. 

And yes, it is largely going to the upper classes, who can afford to lobby for handouts.  Ordinarily, I would agree that high executive pay is no problem; that agreement ends when money is taken out of my pocket to fund the plans of those executives without my consent.  Again, just because you get 50% + 1 in the election doesn’t mean it’s any less theft.

Hundreds of billions stolen each year; it’s time Huckabee, or someone else, worked hard to end this charade.

Hundreds of billions stolen each year; it’s time Huckabee, or someone else, worked hard to end this charade.

So, your objection isn’t to the fact that the govt steals it from us, but that it goes to the “wrong” people?  More class envy rhetoric.

I also find it interesting that according to you, class membership(a Marxist concept) is now determined by opinion?  If what you say is true, that $145K is really “middle class”, that is a testimony to the success of our system.  You would use it to demonize business, which is the source of that success...interesting.
You seem to believe that corporate executives run the govt, which is just not correct.  Having influence is not the same as having command.  Not all businesses succed, and not all corporations are making big profits.  You might want to dial back the class envy rhetoric a bit.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Um, no; rejecting welfare for the rich does not make one a Marxist, even though Marx also would reject such a scheme.  It rather says that one has a basic moral compass that is working well enough to tell that taking money from the poor to give it to the rich is a basic injustice.  It’s a Biblical principle Marxists understand, but evidently country club conservatives have forgotten.

Sorry, but taking bread out of the mouth of Tiny Tim to finance Scrooge’s new Mall of London is not what made England the envy of the world in the 19th Century, nor is it what makes our country the envy of the world today.

Rather, it makes us all poorer, as resources are diverted from profit-making businesses like your barber to fund boondoggles like the Mall of America and the Twinkies.  It even makes the direct recipients of the theft poorer, as their efforts are (again) diverted from profitable activities to those that can only survive with annual infusions of government cheese.

So bb, the government only gives welfare to the rich.  That’s pretty delusionary since about 2/3 of the budget goes to welfare programs that do not favor the rich.  Welfare is welfare an evil attempt to redistribute wealth with the administrators (governments) taking their 10 percent (possibly more) off the top.  It’s a wonderful pyramid scheme if you are one of the administrators.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

...taking money from the poor to give it to the rich is a basic injustice.

Since 2/3rds of our budget goes to social spending and entitlements, and since, after the political class takes their 50%(or more) off the top, the rest goes(by definition) to the poor(although Hillary wants to extend it to the middle class as well), your premise is simply untrue.
Robin Hood, btw, although a fictional character, robbed from the Normans to give to the Saxons.  He was himself a member of Saxon nobility.

Of course, as you should know, I hold that govt should stay the hell out of business, except in certain and very specific instances.  While I think the term “corporate welfare” is a lie, the govt should not be using the tax system to do social engineering in any way.  Why don’t you go after all the workers who get jobs when a business is brought into an area by govt incentives?  They benefit too.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

You’re missing the most basic point here; again, to take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich is a basic injustice.  Is that so darned complicated?

And no, I never said that I favored welfare for the poor; it too has its huge harms by creating moral hazard.  I’m just pointing out that if we can finally get a candidate that will cut out welfare/government payments to the rich, it will be a moral advance, period.

Here are some of the ways we do corporate welfare and subsidies for those who are already prosperous. 

1.  Direct support--farm programs, payments to Boeing for airliners not yet built, etc..

2.  Targeted tariffs--e.g. 25% tax on imported cars, or 30% tax on steel.

3.  Regulation--compliance is far easier for big companies (one position as compliance officer is far less of a burden when you’ve got 10,000 employees than when you have 10)

4.  Tax system--look at Schedule A; medical benefits are 100% deductible for companies, only a fraction of that for individuals, and only after 7% of income is paid for medical care.

Again, we have a government whose policies are designed to drive enterprises to ever larger scales, whether or not that scale is appropriate to the task.  If you want to create more and more highly paid managers, this is how you do it.

It should be ended, as it has NOTHING to do with free enterprise and our current prosperity.

You’re missing the most basic point here; again, to take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich is a basic injustice. Is that so darned
complicated?

It’s just not true.  In addition, you are demonizing the wrong people here.  The govt is redistributing our money for its own benefit.  That is the real problem, and no amount of class envy rhetoric will change anything.  You are attacking the wrong people.
Lessening the tax burden on someone isn’t the same thing as giving them something.  In fact, the govt isn’t entitled to any amount of our money, so your basic premise is wrong.  The only transfer that is really going on is the transfer of money from the private sector to the public sector.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Again, you’re missing the point; it’s wrong to take ANYTHING from the poor to give it to the rich. Period.

Pointing to welfare for the poor or government bribing voters through welfare merely adheres to gelded moral logic in the same way that people used to “justify” Capone’s murders by pointing to how he gave to the church, and poor people in his neighborhood.  Just because others sin, or things work overall “in the favor of a group,” doesn’t mean that it’s not wrong to take from the poor to give to the rich.

Rather, it’s a moral abomination, and the Biblical prophets note that one of the key abominations committed by Israel (as well as Sodom and Gemorrah--see Ezekiel 16:49) was this very kind of cruelty to the poor.

Sorry, but this is one place where country club republicans get it dead wrong.  The fact that a rich man pays a lot of taxes doesn’t give him the right to send a lobbyist to (indirectly) stick his grubby hand into my pocket for a handout, let alone that of “Tiny Tim.” It needs to stop.

Again, you’re missing the point; it’s wrong to take ANYTHING from the poor to give it to the rich. Period. Actually, it is you who are missing the obvious truth here: it is wrong for the govt to redistribute income, period.  Your class envy ideology only recognizes one part of the problem, and the smaller part, at that.

Pointing to welfare for the poor or government bribing voters through welfare merely adheres to gelded moral logic in the same way that people
used to “justify” Capone’s murders by pointing to how he gave to the church, and poor people in his neighborhood. Just because others sin, or things work overall “in the favor of a group,” doesn’t mean that it’s not wrong to take from the poor to give to the rich.  Not my point at all, but you continue with your class envy rhetoric.  I repeat, it’s wrong for the govt to redistribute income, in any direction.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

The fact that a rich man pays a lot of taxes doesn’t give him the right to send a lobbyist to (indirectly) stick his grubby hand into my pocket for a handout, let alone that of “Tiny Tim.” It needs to stop.

Actually, it’s your thinking that has created this problem.  When you burden the top 1% of taxpayers with 39% of the income tax burden, and then use that to implement social engineering programs, you create entitlement for those who pay the bills.  I repeat, it is redistributionist thinking that creates the outcome you don’t like.  No matter how hard you try to game the market, the cream rises to the top.  Instead of your evil redistributionism, you should direct your energies into helping the less productive to become more productive.  In other words, help the poor to earn their riches, rather than stealing it from those who have earned it.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Since when have I endorsed welfare programs for the poor, or confiscatory taxation of the rich, or confiscation of wealth through central banking or inflation for that matter?  If you can find it, let me know.

I am simply concentrating on ONE SUBJECT, and YOU appear to be congenitally incapable of addressing ONE SUBJECT.  Got it?

I am simply concentrating on ONE SUBJECT, and YOU appear to be congenitally incapable of addressing ONE SUBJECT. Got it?

Even your personal attack is wrong here.  Your “one subject” is simply wrong, for all the many reasons I have enumerated here.  You can’t just extract one tiny piece out of a big picture and pretend the rest doesn’t exist; you are pushing class envy, and I’m simply not buying it, and I have innumerable reasons for that.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

...no, you’re incapable of staying on one subject.  I’m sorry, but it’s true.  If we are dealing with something that is a flat out moral abomination, like subsidizing the rich or paying poor girls to have babies out of wedlock, trying to bring in other issues is merely a diversionary tactic.  The big picture is, after all, made up of small brush-strokes, and you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

And no, this isn’t class warfare, but rather basic Biblical ethics.  Those who can take care of themselves easily shouldn’t be subsidized by those who have more difficulty in doing so.  There is nothing complicated about this.

And we should congratulate those who take a stand against this abomination.

And no, this isn’t class warfare, but rather basic Biblical ethics. Those who can take care of themselves easily shouldn’t be subsidized by those
who have more difficulty in doing so. There is nothing complicated about this.

We are governed by the Constitution, not by the Bible.
It is no more evil to rob from the poor to give to the rich(a ridiculous proposition, btw) than it is to rob from the rich to give to the poor.  In fact, there are several good arguments why money flow from the less successful to the more successful, which it does with absolutely no interference from govt.  If you take money from the rich and give it to the poor, it will buy some cigarettes and beer, whereas if you give it to the rich guy, he will create jobs with it, and more prosperity that will elevate even the poor to a higher level.  It is proven every day.
You are just stuck in your self-righteous class envy riff.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

108, it’s hardly class warfare to point out that most societies in the world have come to the (correct) conclusion that theft from the poor is morally more reprehensible than theft from the rich.  The one deprives the poor of essentials; the other deprives the rich of luxuries.  One can lead to hunger and even starvation; the other leads to a slightly less flavorful dinner.

If you cannot see a moral distinction here, then I pity you.  Unfortunately, the kind of immoral thinking you espouse here is a big reason that the GOP has trouble getting traction among the poor; there have simply been too many leaders and activists who more or less said “let them eat cake.”

108, it’s hardly class warfare to point out that most societies in the world have come to the (correct) conclusion that theft from the poor is
morally more reprehensible than theft from the rich. Theft is theft, and it’s only class envy rhetoric that makes the distinction you seem so obsessed about. The Commandment says “Thou shalt not steal”, not “thou shalt not steal from the poor, but it’s OK to steal from the rich”. The one deprives the poor of essentials; the other deprives the rich of luxuries. False.  Stealing is not dependent on how much one has done to succeed.  You propose a penalty for success, which is fundamentally immoral. One can lead to hunger and even starvation; the other leads to a slightly less flavorful dinner. Is this a reality in this country, or only something you are making up to defend your class warfare?

If you cannot see a moral distinction here, then I pity you. Thou shalt not steal.  What’s the “moral distinction”? Unfortunately, the kind of immoral thinking you espouse here Actually, it is you who think that stealing from some people is OK.  That is real immorality. is a big reason that the GOP has trouble getting traction among the poor; there have simply been too many leaders and activists who more or less said “let them eat cake.” Another class warfare lie.  We are all in favor of the poor being upwardly mobile.  We just don’t think stealing from the successful is moral.

---

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

No, different moral reactions to different kinds of theft are not a penalty for success, but rather reflective of the harm that is done by the theft.  Stealing something from someone who is already poor does him more harm than it does to someone who is rich.  It’s more or less the same reason why we punish child abuse more harshly than assault; the punch is the same, the impact is greater. 

Been reading too much Ayn Rand, I take it?

Stealing something from someone who is already poor does him more harm than it does to someone who is rich.

Thou shalt not steal.  I think that’s in the Bible.
But then, I’m not a moral relativist like you apparently are.  Unlike you, I get my knowledge from a lot of different sources, not some book.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

It’s relativism to point out that when you steal from the vulnerable, you’re incurring not only the sin of theft, but also the sin of cruelty in causing them to go hungry, homeless, or jobless?

I’d suggest that you might do well to migrate from your unnamed, apparently unwritten, “moral” sources and take a good, hard look at the Scriptures.

It seems to me that a flat tax rate and the abandonment of social programs is the only fair solution. 

As long as we have a tax code that takes a greater percentage from some than others and as long as the government redistributes those funds to some, we have inequities in the system, period. 

It seems what we often find ourselves doing is trying to make an inequitable system more fair. 

The foundation is the problem here, it’s out of plumb and no amount of patch work will true it up.

I suggest you take a look at this Scripture:

“Thou shalt not steal.” It’s not a relativistic statement.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

108, I suggest that you would do well to actually address the response to your silly claims, perhaps elucidating what your spectral sources of morality might be.

And I’d also suggest that you’d do well to read the rest of the Scriptures to see how Moses, the prophets, and others fleshed out the 7th Commandment.  Moreover, I’d suggest that you take a look at our common law, which does take into account the actual harm done in assigning penalties and severity of the crime. YOu’re simply using farcical definitions to try and make a point that 99% of people through history would consider flat out absurd.

And HG, let’s go one more step to the basics; does it matter that we “get our money back in one form or another,” or is it simply a very real wrong that we do not get to spend our money as we see fit?  My state gets money back from DC in the form of Amtrak and public transit; I’m not sure that this is the form I wanted it in, though.

BB: I suggest you re-examine your “morality” that claims a person’s financial status determines whether you can steal from them or not.  You are simply advocating class warfare based on economic status(based on your personal definition of “rich” and “poor").  You are on the same page with Karl Marx on this one.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I suggest you consult the 9th Commandment, “thou shalt bear no false witness,” as I never claimed such a thing.  I am merely saying that it is morally worse to steal from the poor because they suffer more from the theft.  In other words, there are two sins involved; theft, and flat out cruelty to the victim, as the thief knows a priori that the theft is far more likely to result in the victim going hungry, starving, or losing their job/house/etc..

You’ve said a lot about your moral system, 108, and none of it is printable, sad to say.  Again, if you wonder why the poor won’t give the GOP the time of day, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

And if you want to see a reason that the poor might start to look at the GOP, LOOK AT HUCKABEE.

I am merely saying that it is morally worse to steal from the poor because they suffer more from the theft.

This is a double standard based on economic status, as defined by you.  You might want to check into that “bearing false witness” thing yourself.  If stealing is immoral(and it is), then economic status isn’t a factor.  I’m not excusing the “rich” stealing from the “poor"(in your judgment); I’m simply not excusing stealing from anyone based on their perceived economic status.  Get it?
I reject your contention that some stealing is any more or less moral than other stealing.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

You’ve said a lot about your moral system, 108, and none of it is printable, sad to say. What are you talking about?  Is this just another baseless personal attack?  Shame on you! Again, if you wonder why the poor won’t give the GOP the time of day, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.  I guess my morality isn’t conditioned by political expediency. If the “poor"(in your judgment) won’t vote for the Party that wants to enable them to be upwardly mobile, I find that to be the fault of unopposed propaganda.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

No, not a baseless attack, but a simple reflection upon history.  Men have known for a long time that certain actions have primary, secondary, and tertiary effects, and therefore we condition our response to immoral acts on not only the primary effects, but also the secondary and tertiary effects.

Sorry, fella, but you’re the one in the minority here, and it’s not just Marxists who have figured out that it’s worse to deprive a poor man of bread than it is to deprive a rich man of caviar.

Again, if you cannot figure out that the morality of an action includes the secondary and tertiary (and further) effects, then that doesn’t say anything nice about your sense of ethics and morals.  I again suggest that you might do well to read the entire Scripture to learn how the great moral lawgiver actually tells people to treat the poor.

...it’s worse to deprive a poor man of bread than it is to deprive a rich man of caviar.

A false dichotomy, and one that is entirely dependent on your personal judgment about what constitutes “rich” and “poor”, an element which you continue to ignore.

My ethics and morals say that perceived economic status isn’t a justification for stealing.
Advocating that people be charitable to the poor isn’t the same thing as a differential justification for steawling based on perceived economic status.
Your rationalization is faulty here.
Stealing is immoral, no matter who does it, and for what reason.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

BTW, if I’m right, it doesn’t matter who agrees with me; you should know that.  Do you think that the Israelites were in the majority in their time?  Is that your definition of morality?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Yes, if you should happen to be right, it doesn’t matter that everyone else disagrees with you.  However, when everyone disagrees with you, that does mean that you really ought to be checking your logic.

A specific place might be your claim of “false dichotomy,” as if stealing from the poor does not deprive them of necessities.  Having spent time reaching out to the poor in south central LA, Chicago, and elsewhere, I know for a fact that the poor are deprived of even food when they face theft. 

Witness the lines when churches reach out to the poor with groceries, and the pawn shops in poor areas.  Sorry, but when you steal from the poor, you are in many cases taking food off the table, taking family heirlooms out of their homes, and even taking them out of their homes.

If you don’t see this as an objective sin that merits greater condemnation than taking caviar off Bill Gates’ Christmas party table, you again have a gelded sense of morality.

However, when everyone disagrees with you, that
does mean that you really ought to be checking your logic.

My logic is based on the premise that all stealing is wrong.  What’s your premise?

Your false dichotomy was to frame it as the choice between bread and caviar.  You know that, so you are deliberately ignoring that fact.  It’s about the morality of stealing, not the moral relativism of what get stolen, or of the economic status of the victim of the theft.  Your real immorality is to impose your personal definition of “rich” and “poor” without defining what you mean by those terms.  When you set a dollar amount, you place yourself on that slippery slope of justifying some crimes and disapproving of some others, based on your definition of class distinction based on income status, net worth, or whatever you arbitrarily choose to use as your standard.  You are simply being self-righteous.
I repeat: It’s certainly good to help the poor, but that doesn’t justify stealing from those who you define as “rich”.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

And HG, let’s go one more step to the basics; does it matter that we “get our money back in one form or another,” or is it simply a very real wrong that we do not get to spend our money as we see fit?

I’d say the latter.  Getting our money back isn’t reality unless it is a tax credit or refund I can spend.  Giving money back by giving it to businesses, organizations, and to those individuals who didn’t pay any taxes is an injustice in my opinion.  This sort of thing promotes a form of competition for federal dollars which is destructive and divisive for society. I agree that some who are rich will oppress the poor if it will line their pockets.  I also agree that the poor have no right to the wealth of others.  But, in a free society where self-governed individuals fail or succeed econmically on their own, tax laws which are aimed at balancing social inequeties create greater inequities, class envy and fractures society.

HG: Well said.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Thanks R108.

I’d like to go back to my original comment on this post and discuss the distinction made in your response.

Stock is offered to the corp. execs as well as to employees.  The difference is one is compensation and the other is retirement.  Both are contingent upon the future profits of a corp. but when the books are cooked to prop up stock prices while the company is acutally sinking, then those execs excercise their stock options at or close to the 52 week high, while the hundreds if not thousands of employees are stuck hangin onto stock that drops like a rock and are helpless as their retiremtent is lost, you can bet there will be resentment fostered.  It may not be illegal but it certainly ought to be, and at the very least it is highly unethical.  This type of behavior creates envy and distrust of Corp. America.  Corp America could do much to change this. If stock options were tied to company success employees would have little if anything to resent about execs exercising stock options since it would not appear to come at the expense of thier retirement.  Bottom line there is no wisdom in the structure and compensation of corp. execs when it creates so much public resentment.

...when the books are cooked…

Then it’s a crime and should be prosecuted.  It’s still not about class envy politics, even though the lefties like to play it that way, as if every corp and every “executive” is guilty of it, simply by the fact that they earn a good salary.  You should know better than to engage in that.  Enron got prosecuted, didn’t it?  The 800 pound gorilla in that room was the chummy relationship with the Clinton admin and the greed of the investors who believed that they had an inside track, when a little clear thinking would have told them it was a bad investment from the jump.
We shouldn’t be bailing out people who make bad financial decisions, or anyone else for that matter, IMO.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

108, my premise is the same; I simply point out that you’ve also got to take into account the suffering endured by the victim. 

Stealing from Bill Gates simply does not cause the same harm as if you went to the barrio outside Tijuana and took the tortilla money from a cardboard shack, or if you stood outside the check cashing business and stole a man’s weekly paycheck.

Is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Also, HG has a great point that the powerful DO abuse securities, knowing that it more or less takes a political vendetta to get prosecuted for securities fraud, or a collapse so spectacular that even DC bureaucrats can’t ignore it anymore.

And again, if we simply reduced the support that government gives for big business, the opportunity for Enron-like shananigans would be decreased.  You don’t have to be a populist, libertarian, or Marxist to realize this, although it does appear important that you don’t refer to yourself as “Robert108.”

It’s still not about class envy politics, even though the lefties like to play it that way, as if every corp and every “executive” is guilty of it, simply by the fact that they earn a good salary.

I completely agree. 

You should know better than to engage in that.

The point isn’t that all are guilty of such things.  The point is that resentment amongst the public exists in large part due to the perceived inequities in compensation packages for executives as compared to employees retirement accounts.  Not this alone, but this is one that seems to come up quite often.  The ease with which this can be exploited and has been exploited fosters resentment and distrust, not necessarily envy.  There are things that Corps. can do to eliminate the perception and therefore the resentment and distrust.  Its really just a matter of ethics.  There is wisdom in avoiding the appearance of evil.

The point is that resentment amongst the public exists in large part due to the perceived
inequities in compensation packages for executives as compared to employees retirement accounts.

Which is entirely due to leftie class envy warfare propaganda.  We should be using those people as an example of what to shoot for, instead of demonizing them and trying to tear them down.  We should have a target of success, rather than mediocrity.  A society built on mediocrity isn’t what we want.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Which is entirely due to leftie class envy warfare propaganda.

Blaming the leftie propaganda won’t change anything.  Changing practices that are an easy, easy target would help. Again, a little wisdom wouldn’t hurt.

108, my premise is the same; I simply point out that you’ve also got to take into account the suffering endured by the victim.

Stealing from Bill Gates simply does not cause the same harm as if you went to the barrio outside Tijuana and took the tortilla money from a cardboard shack, or if you stood outside the check cashing business and stole a man’s weekly paycheck.

Is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

I comprehend Marxism-based class warfare propaganda quite well.  Your continued support of a double standard of morality based on your personal judgment of who is “rich” and who is “poor” is to me reprehensible, and is no different from Marxism and its preaching.  You want to divide one group of Americans against another, on the basis of success in life, and that is just wrong.  You are doing the work of those who would destroy American society and replace it with equal outcome mediocrity.
While you base your argument on characterizing a whole group of people as being like Bill Gates, and eating caviar, and the “opposing” group as being one loaf of bread away from starvation(The “Tale of Two Cities” model), the reality of America is completely different.  Your extremism is telling.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Proverbs 6:30-31 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

Humanity pities the poor thief, but it is steal breaking the law.  Nobody pities the wealthy thief.

I think this is the difference Bike Bubba is referring to.

still not “steal”. my bad.

Blaming the leftie propaganda won’t change anything. Changing practices that are an easy, easy target would help. Again, a little wisdom wouldn’t
hurt.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  If their lies can make us change our principles, we have lost, and that is exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party at the present time.  Besides, no amount of change on our part will appease them.  Their real agenda is to destroy the free enterprise system and individual independence, and every time we knuckle under to them, we lose, and they are emboldened to keep going.
You are in error, my friend.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I think this is the difference Bike Bubba is referring to.

I know that quite well, and consider it a false value system.  Those words were written at a time when wealth was a matter of birth, not achievement, so I understand the justification for the double standard.  Poor people were stuck there, with no way out, but that is no longer true in our system, so it no longer applies.
The other reason for its falsity is that it is essentially “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, which is Marxism.  In our system it’s “to each according to his achievement, from each according to his choice”.
Big difference, and no need for a double standard on the matter of theft.  It’s wrong, no matter who does it.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

No, 108, it is you who is misled. It’s not Marxist to suggest that to kick a man when he’s down is especially wicked. It’s basic morality and ethics.

And yes, 108, there are points where executive compensation is way out of line.  Again, look at what regulation does, as well as favorable tax treatment for corporations vs. small businesses (example; medical insurance deductibility).  Look at the HMO exemption from antitrust laws and other favorable regulation--do you think that might have had something to do with the $1.4 billion given to the former head of UHC?

Going back to the original premise, there is something completely free market that can be done per Huckabee’s comments to curb executive pay; stop giving them money from the government via “redevelopment” and “incentives,” stop passing regulation favorable to them and not their competition, and so forth.

More or less, if you oppose ending welfare to the rich--hundreds of billions of dollars annually--it is you who unwittingly becomes the Marxist here.

If their lies can make us change our principles, we have lost, and that is exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party at the present time.

I absolutely agree.  But, are you saying that changing the way Corps compensate execs and employees is based upon principle?  I believe it is based solely upon current tax laws which prevent payroll and SS tax from being collected on investment income that form compensation packages. 

Besides, no amount of change on our part will appease them.

Again, I completely agree. 

Their real agenda is to destroy the free enterprise system and individual independence, and every time we knuckle under to them, we lose, and they are emboldened to keep going.

True, but I don’t see avoiding the appearance that leads to resentment as knuckling under. 

Some of our childhood friends had more than others growing up.  Some loved to brag and boast of themselves because of what they had. This sort of behavior caused some to resent them and avoid them.  Others didn’t make an issue of it and were very down to earth and subsequently got along with others.  How others perceive the wealthy depends on how they present themselves.  If they behave in a way that seems place importance upon themselves they incure the resentment of others.  It is just human nature.

I know that quite well, and consider it a false value system.

Right or wrong it exists and will never be eradicated.  It is part of our nature and we will always contend with it.
How we do so will make a difference in others perception.

More or less, if you oppose ending welfare to the rich--hundreds of billions of dollars annually--it is you who unwittingly becomes the Marxist here.

There is no “welfare” to the “rich”, no matter how you define “rich”.  You are wrong on all counts.  It is no more reprehensible to steal from someone who has more than it is to steal from someone who has less, despite your obvious situational morality.  I oppose all govt use of taxpayer money for any but the truly needy, and the vast majority of social spending goes to those who are not truly needy; it’s used to buy votes for the political class, and no amount of class envy rhetoric from you changes that.
If achievers are given an advantage(because they have more to give-go get a job from a homeless guy sometime), it is wrong, but no more wrong than confiscating the earnings of successful people to subsidize those who are less successful in a lifestyle they haven’t earned.
Your double standard about stealing is simply wrong, and has no place in a modern, free enterprise society.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Actually, in Biblical Israel, wealth was not mostly inherited, but rather earned.  Proverbs gives extensive wisdom about the need to work, and the Torah structure for land ownership more or less prevented anyone from accumulating huge areas of land.  Few were completely landless, and the poor were largely those who fell sick, or fell victim to poor habits.

Just like today, really.  And in this view, the Scriptures (rightly) condemn cruelty to the poor, and corporate welfare certainly fits the bill.

Really, 108, if you’re going to make claims about Scripture, you might do well to bother reading it first.

How we do so will make a difference in others perception.

This is the delusion common to all who think appeasement will work.  When you lose your principles to try to be popular, you lose everything.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

But, are you saying that changing the way Corps
compensate execs and employees is based upon principle?

It’s based on the principle of getting the most out of the existing onerous taxes and regulations.  See: Invisible Hand Doctrine, by Adam Smith.  The problem is that the govt distorts the market.  Asking businesses to have principles that ignore the distortions of govt interference is simply insane.  Talk about human nature.

As far as your childhood example is concerned, you simply describe the consequences of teaching class envy to children; some rise above it, and the majority are deceived by it, to their detriment in adult life.  The problem isn’t with the successful; it’s with those who refuse to be successful, and wish for the rewards of effort without actually doing it.
That’s true greed, IMO.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

...the Torah structure for land ownership more or less prevented anyone from accumulating huge areas of land.

Not exactly a free enterprise economy, was it?  Central control of achievement.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Not a rejection of free enterprise, but a limitation on contracts in the same way that we today ban certain forms of usury, slavery, and such.  And did it limit achievement?  Hardly.  Look in 2 Chronicles, chapters 1-9, to see what the combination of long term land ownership and free trade through the country could do for an economy. 

People don’t today speak reverently of the wealth of Solomon because Israel was an economic backwater, 108.

People don’t today speak reverently of the wealth of Solomon because Israel was an economic backwater, 108.

I’m sure that in its time, it was fairly free, compared to the totalitarian monarchies that surrounded it, but that doesn’t make it a free enterprise system.  In fact, any area with tribal rivalries and an hereditary class system is limited as to how much it can participate in a free enterprise system.  The comparison is simply wrong.
As we have seen with the chicoms, even a little smidgen of free enterprise can be beneficial, especially if there is a really free, productive and prosperous country to furnish them with a market for their stuff.  I think you will agree, however, that the chicoms lack several of the ingredients to have a real free enterprise system.  So, while a little freedom is a good thing, the whole enchilada is enormously better.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I think you missed the point; Solomon’s splendor is described in such a way as to make it fairly clear that apart from modern technology, we even today don’t have bragging rights over the prosperity of his kingdom.

For starters, his tax rates were about HALF of those today.  Just because they didn’t have unfettered debt and so on doesn’t mean that people back then were somehow hampered in conducting business!

For starters, his tax rates were about HALF of those today. Just because they didn’t have unfettered debt and so on doesn’t mean that people back then were somehow hampered in conducting business!

If you think there is any meaningful economic comparison that can be made between an agrarian monarchy of thousands of years ago and our modern industrial technological economy, you have missed quite a few points.  When the King owns everything anyway, tax rates are not anywhere near comparable, and when there is little or no capital investment taking place, any comparison of debt and taxes is meaningless.
We aren’t going into the future by clinging to an outmoded past.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Wow, great point, with the little exception being that you completely misrepresent the nature of the ancients.  For starters, the king didn’t own everything, and as some of the greatest trade routes went through the country, it wasn’t completely agrarian, either, but rather dealt heavily in trade with Tyre, Assyria, Egypt, and the other surrounding nations.

You know, there is a book called the “Bible” that you could read to, say, actually “learn some history” before spouting off on what you don’t know.  There are also texts that give descriptions of the “History of Western Civilization” that educated men USED to be required to read and understand to be considered educated, and men USED TO KNOW that “those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.”

In other words, men USED TO KNOW that we could apply lessons learned from societies that are different than our own.  Hopefully you will soon realize this.

In other words, men USED TO KNOW that we could apply lessons learned from societies that are different than our own. Hopefully you will soon realize this.

Despite your feeble attempts at personal attack, you are simply wrong about your equivalence of any Biblical “economy” with any present-day economy, which is my point.  You have presented no facts/logic to support your contention that there was anything resembling our present free enterprise system existing at any time in the past.
Your assumption that I completely reject learning from the past is simply wrong.  In fact, one of the reasons we have the economic progress we enjoy at present is that we learned from, and rejected, the economic lessons of the past.
To say that Biblical economies weren’t primarily agrarian is simply ridiculous.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

You could consider the differences a reason not to make the comparison, or you could consider those differences exactly the reason to make the comparison, don’t you think?

Again, here we are confronted, as with the Hanseatic League, Middle Ages Europe, and the United States prior to 1913, with an example of societies that lack subsidies for the banking industry (central banking & the Fed) and yet achieve great prosperity--and also despite what you would call large disadvantages of being mostly agrarian, and having monarchies.

Maybe it should suggest to you that “what you know” about the current situation isn’t exactly right.

Maybe it should suggest to you that “what you know” about the current situation isn’t exactly right.

If you think there is much valid comparison between pre-industrial and post-industrial economies, you need more help than I can give you.  You try to sell “learning from the past”, but what you really want is to return to the past.  Not gonna happen.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Yes, you can learn from the past, 108, and I’m always amazed at how impervious you are to the facts of history and economics.  When I point out that your understanding of history is totally flawed, you proceed as if nothing had happened.

Sorry, but if you want to prove that we’ve learned from the economic mistakes of the past, you have to PROVE that the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom was an economic disaster.  Good luck.  Reality is that the fear of God, restrictions on debt and land sales, and stable political leadership transformed Israel from a poor backwater to a regional power in a few decades.

Again, even today, we can learn a LOT from this.  We can start by ending corporate welfare and subsidies for the rich, as did ancient Israel.

Which suggests that, once again, your understanding of history is fatally flawed, if it exists at all.  Sorry, but if we had really learned from history, we just might jettison this “socialism” thing, don’t you think?  Reality is that people are clamoring for it.

If that is what you call “learning,” I’ll take the “ignorance” that “masqueraded” as learning just a century ago, thank you very much.