She's a "convenience" lesbian. Her entire campaign was in the closet and she certainly wasn't anywhere found during charleston pride last year or this year for that matter. She's campaigning for Joe Riley and who "deserves our support?" really? Joe Riley didn't support charleston pride' - Keith Summey did-
You said: "Liberals collect taxes to punish those that are more successful than they."
That's a very simplistic statement and once again incorrect. Republicans collected taxes from the industrial northern states for the last 13 years and redistributed the monies so that the bigger pie recipients would be the southern states.
Tax payers up North pay more into the federal government than they get back in payments (ie. subsidies), whereas southern states (you and I) get back more than they pay in.
"Red" states (as defined by voting for Bush in the last election) generally get back more in spending then they send to Washington and "blue" states (those that voted for Kerry) generally recieve less than they send to Washington. There are exceptions, but the overall picture is very clear.
Red states take money from the blue states.
I've provided links. Take a course in macro economics. It might actually enlighten your POV.
In case you're not clued in by now Hellbound, my post above was intended to express my disdain for a system in which my partner and I will be able to retire in relative luxury, while millions of others -- people who worked hard all their lives but had little or nothing to spare for savings and lacked the expertise to invest safely even had they possessed disposable income to invest with -- millions of such people will continue to subsist on the meager social security safety net our society has determined is the very least we can do to make sure the elderly in American don't have to sleep under bridges in the rain and snow.
My partner and I routinely vote against our own economic self-interest because we believe that we who have been fortunate in our ability to acquire wealth have a moral obligation to share some of that wealth with those less fortunate. We believe, moreover, that this sharing should not consist merely in donations to charity and that no one who has been successful in America should be exempt from the requirement to contribute to the well-being of those who have not been so successful.
We believe in a society in which those who profit most from the system must put back into the system a reasonable amount of wealth proportionate to their ability to do so. We do not subscribe to the view that billionaires -- or even millionaires -- ought to be permitted to opt out of contributing to the stability of society and the alleviating of human misery, but should, rather, be required, through the tax system to make those contributions.
What charity we and others in the higher tax brackets choose to give is the measure of our generosity. But no one should be permitted to profit in this nation from a system which rewards so highly the exploitation of others without being required to give back to those whom they've exploited.
Exploitation is the fuel of capitalism. We who have been successful could not have achieved what we have achieved without the support of millions of others who have not been so richly rewarded. One cannot succeed and avoid exploitation. And so, we feel -- quite appropriately, I believe -- indebted to those millions of others, and are content to allow our government, on our behalf, to "confiscate" some of our wealth for re-distribution to some of those people from whose efforts we have profited.
So, of course, either you missed my original point entirely or -- as I believe -- you determined to distort it in order to make you appear to be victim. My partner and I have "safeguarded" our wealth only to the extent that laws passed by free-marketers have "safeguarded" it for us. Because this society is still so penurious with respect to the poor, we have found avenues other than through taxes we SHOULD BE PAYING to spread our relative wealth around. But there are many in our position who simply rejoice in the "freedom" from "excessive" taxation and abdicate their moral responsibility to the poor and elderly. If our tax system doesn't force them to meet those moral responsibilities, they simply won't do it --and many will suffer as a result.
That's the moral truth your disingenuous retort was designed to disguise.
Those like you who, it would seem, feel no moral responsibility to others, and who regard every penny you can get your grubby hands on as "deserved" have nothing but my contempt. You seem to feel that competition is the moral arbiter of human value, and that those who succeed -- however much that success may have luck and greed and ruthlessness as its foundation -- are more "deserving" of freedom from want, of decent health care, of good schools and security in their old age than are those who tried to compete and failed -- many for lack of natural ability, lack of luck, or lack of ruthlessness.
Your smarmy attempt to put words in my mouth while vicimizing yourself in hypocricy was dishonest, and I think you know it.
I have a sad case of "wealth envy"? Do you rent space in *my* head that you know my life, my income, or my wealth status? Do you know my income bracket?
While you, Hellbound4hire, desire to hoard and protect "your" wealth from those who "want to confiscate it," some of us are interested in continuing to question the basis for claiming "possession" as the most fundamental human right.
Moreover, what constitutes legitimate claims to wealth, to capitalists, seems to be defined by the phrase "whatever I can get my hands on, legally if necessary, illegally if possible, and without any consideration of morality whatever."
Some of us are interested in clarifying what might be more morally legitimate definitions of "personal wealth" than those which seem to obtain at present. "Mine" is the most important word in the capitalist's lexicon. No consideration of the role of luck in the acquisition of wealth, no acknowledgment of the role of a majority of others in society who create the conditions for the acquisition of wealth by a tiny minority, nor any willingness to consider that wealth acquisition accomplished at the expense of the human misery of countless others may not be morally grounded disturbs the capitalist's conscience.
The capitalist believes in the absolute right to acquire limitless wealth, with no regard for the consequences to society of the concentration of wealth into the fewest possible hands. And capitalism, as a system, without mitigation through restraints designed to limit wealth acquisition to those forms which do not exploit others and which do not tend to oligarchy, is so constructed as to make oligarchy inevitable.
Capitalists wish to protect "their" wealth from "confiscation" by the State because they refuse to acknowledge -- most even to themselves -- that no one acquires wealth through individual effort alone, and so none can with any moral legitimacy claim that all they have they alone have "earned." The reason they can conceal from themselves the fact that their wealth is only partly "theirs" is that they regard cunning, the ability to exploit others and the desirability of the formation of economic elites with power to control the rest of society perfectly rational moral principles. They seen nothing whatever wrong in exploitation of others, and regard those wno either lack the skills or heartlessness to expoit others as weak and deserving of poverty.
Those like you who would embrace pure "free market" philosophy are, at bottom, smug and self-congratulatory creatures who feel no grief at the poverty their favored system creates for the vast majority of the world's peoples and pretend to credit the notion of "trickle-down" economic forces by which capitalism inexorably "lifts all boats."
One never hears those who extol the "moral" virtues of capitalism express the slightest concern for the widening of the gap between the rich and those beneath them on the economic ladder. Rather, they use the power afforded to them by the wealth they have successfuly gamed the system to acquire to further limit the ability of those whom they exploit to compete.
Winning is the only goal of the capitalist and competition designed to guarantee that the winners may so far elevate themselves above the masses as to be able to embrace, without the slightest psychological discomfort, the notion that they are "better than" those "others," -- even, ironically, "better" in a moral sense. Acquisition, for such people, is the "proof" of not only their own superior cleverness and industry, but of their moral "superiority," as well.
And they will -- and do -- kill to maintain both the wealth which supports their psychopathology the illusion of moral superiority the affect to believe that wealth represents.
This is the second time you've said this "income distribution through government force". That in itself is a broad statement and I'll tell you what I think of this. If you speak of disproportionate taxes then yes, this concerns me greatly. I have a real problem with the wealthy. i.e. <$200K a year paying only 15% taxes when people who only make $40K a year pay 25%. So, what exactly are you defining as income distribution? That you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes? That you would rather the poor foot the bill for you? Here's what Jesus would say:
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Mr. President, this was not a green light for the richest 3,000 families in America to inherit everything else. End your policy of upward income redistribution by preserving the Dynasty Tax, dividend and capital gains taxes, and rolling back your shockingly irresponsible 2001-3 tax cuts. Your FY 2005 budget deficit is estimated at $521 billion and your State of the Union promise to halve the deficit by 2009 is sheer fantasy. All this for a bag of silver for you and your friends… "
I think this pretty much sums up what I think of "income re-distribution"
And as for being "wrong about everything"
.. well if I'm so "wrong" then why can't you prove how I'm wrong other than by saying it? And no.. your posts are hardly entertainment other than the foolish fodder of an uneducated troll. Jesus Christ was a SOCIAL liberal or do you not understand the distinction? You espouse a very NARROW and INCORRECT definition of what liberalism actually is. By its very definition the word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber ("free, not slave"). It is widely associated with the word "liberty" and the concept of freedom. Liberalism also focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life.
Now before you go off and do like many do which is to confuse liberalism with socialism, here's a lesson in the two:
19th century liberals are the intellectual forefathers of both today's conservatives and today's liberals, which is one reason I always chafe at the use of the term "liberal" as an epithet by conservatives. What you and others so often deride about today's liberals isn't their liberalism, which many conservatives more-or-less share, but our adoption of certain aspects of socialism.
However, I don't expect you to understand this.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper