Re: If Kerry is elected...

From: Jim Yanik (jyanik_at_abuse.gov.)
Date: 10/18/04 

Date: 18 Oct 2004 23:41:01 GMT

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:fKUcd.263470$MQ5.42264@attbi_s52:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:faHcd.259202$MQ5.39637@attbi_s52:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>><drivel>
>>>
>>>You can't refute anything I say, so you resort to name calling. Fine.
>>>I wasn't talking to you anyway, and could care less what you think.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Excuse me,but in this post you neglected to include what "names" I am
>> alleged to have called you.
>>
>
> You are right, you didn't call me names. I was mistaken. You were
> calling progressive tax policy 'marxist', which is simply wrong.

It certainly is not wrong;taxing different people at different rates based
on their wealth is Marxist.

>
> You then snipped the gist of my argument, calling it 'utopian speech'
> (apparently you didn't bother to read it), and started biting at my
> ankles by calling me a marxist for my admittedly somewhat poetic
> conclusion.

Oh,I read it.Except,as posted before,I did NOT call you anything.
I said the *term* you used was Marxist.
Do I need to repost it AGAIN?

>
> The point of my argument to Mr Seim was that republicans believe they
> have a policy, but it's not a policy, it's a strategy. Their strategy
> is designed to take power, by fooling the bible belt and the south
> into believing that the republican party is on their side, when it's
> really working for big business. They vote for Bush, thinking he is a
> Robertson republican, and what they really get is a policy designed by
> Goldwater.
>
> He was also saying that liberals don't have a real vision.
>
> The liberal vision, however, is obvious, as the part you snipped
> pointed out. It's that everybody should benefit from the advances of
> society. The reason that 'conservatives' think 'liberal' is a dirty
> word is that they don't really understand that they are, at heart,
> already liberal. The 'republican stragegists' have tried to change the
> meaning of the word to be 'elitist snob' for political reasons.
>
> However, the liberal idea has won so completely that, really,
> *everybody* is a liberal, *everybody* in America believes that we
> should take care of the sick and the aged; that we should help people
> in need; and, that we should work toward 'the common good'. That's the
> goal, and whether some of us are willing to admit it or not, we all
> believe it. Bush seems to believe it; listen to his speeches. The only
> real disagreement is how to make this goal happen.
>
> The Goldwater 'program' is to dismantle government, or at least to
> cripple it. These guys believe that corporations, not governments,
> should get to say what happens, and should drive policy for economic
> good. They believe that government is an impediment to a completely
> free market, and that a totally free market is the path towards this
> liberal utopia where nobody starves, and everybody enjoys the benefits
> of society. They quote Adam Smith. Their main idea can be summarised
> as this statement: a rising tide carries all boats.
>
> Well, this is where I disagree. It's obvious to anyone who looks that
> there are some boats that simply don't rise with the tide.

And they probably never will,regardless.
That does not mean we take money from others and give it to them.

> In the last
> 20 years, wealth has concentrated into the hands of a tiny minority.
> Tax policy has been carefully restructured to ensure that this
> disparity of wealth continues, and even increases.

You mean like the ESTATE tax,where one cannot transfer their accumulated
wealth to their heirs,without the gov't taking half of it?
Pure Marxism.

>More people fall
> into poverty each year. Real wages are falling. People can't afford
> health care. The middle class is being eroded. Without progressive tax
> policy, this erosion simply continues unchecked.

Bull.All that "progressive" tax policy does is fund bigger
government.Government is extremely inefficient and wasteful.It's non-
productive.I suppose you figure that they can get cushy gov't jobs pushing
paper.

>
> Also, these days, this free market dream amounts to 'rule by
> corporation'. However, most of us don't vote for the board of
> directors of most corporations, and thus they generally aren't
> accountable to anyone or anything except the need for profits.
> Further, they aren't good stewards of the 'common good', in the form
> of the global environment, or even the economic infrastructure. They
> are social machines, created to extract and process the environment
> for the good of their owners. Any good they do for the public is a
> byproduct of this primary activity. Adam Smith could never have
> conceived of their sheer power to do this when he wrote "The Wealth of
> Nations". Adam Smith, who was a social progressive, would have been a
> Democrat had he lived today.
>
> Democrats believe that everyone should benefit when society advances,
> not just the few. A majority of those bible-belt Robertson republicans
> would agree with this, I think. This view is, basically, the Christian
> ethic.

I believe they believe that people should help voluntarily,not forced to by
taxation.I do agree that corporations need to be watched.That's the "fair
playing field" I mentioned earlier.
>
> Regressive tax policy, and unchecked corporate power, despite the best
> intentions of those who are working towards them, is *not* a way to
> bring us closer to the goal. It simply does not work. Strong
> government control of corporations, and progressive tax policy is what
> leads to a better environment, a healthy infrastructure, and a
> swelling middle class, which is, in my mind anyway, the right thing to
> be working towards.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bob Monsen 

-- 
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net