Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, I don't have the time to write a cliff-notes summary at the moment, but Google reveals some cliff notes-sized summaries here or here.

OK, so it is essentially a "do on to others" approach to morally. And applied to taxes, I guess the view would be that progressive taxation is OK because if I was lower in the food chain I would want others to feel more pain than me? Doesn't seem like this is a moral justification at all.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Quotes like this may work against him, but they haven't to date.

I think that those who support Kerry are the Anyone but Bush crowd so it really doesn't matter what this dork says or does during the campaign - they will support him. If the swing voters swing toward Bush, it will not be because of anything Kerry says or does.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
OK, so it is essentially a "do on to others" approach to morally. And applied to taxes, I guess the view would be that progressive taxation is OK because if I was lower in the food chain I would want others to feel more pain than me? Doesn't seem like this is a moral justification at all.

I certainly do think that there is an element of class warfare involved in progessive taxation. However, whether there is a moral justification for it or not just depends on how you define moral justification.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Doesn't seem like this is a moral justification at all.

It's not. It's philosophical. But the model is more robust--remember, you don't know what position you'll be in behind the veil of ignorance, so, in such a position, you would choose to ensure that the least well off are the best taken care of.

Is it just me, or do the rest of you realize that the our nation’s enemies in the forces of Radical Islam have the same basic P.o.V about America’s future as most of the mainstream leftists in the demorat party and their comrades in the liberal media? I.e. America is to blame for the ills of the world and our present society and value system is corrupt and must be destroyed?

In essence the American left and the Islamofacists are in a defacto alliance bent on the destruction of judeo-christian Western society.

Of course, this is not to suggest a conspiracy of intellectual equals, the leftists are obviously the dimwitted dupes of the uneducated Islamics. The non-too-veiled ultimate goals of the Islamofacists and the bourgeois Euro-American leftists do not coincide after they get past their mutual hatred of the modernistic, capitalistic, judeo-christian West societal construct.

The atheistic boobs of the secularized leftwing are stupid enough to believe that they can collaborate with the Islamics in bringing down our society and at the end of the game co-opt the revolution, but of course, they are mistaken. Sadly tragically mistaken.

Islam will crush them. Or behead them. Infidel fools.

And before I get a lot of grief from the naïve dunderheads here, let me say that I can declare Mohammed a murderous, thieving lying lunatically pedophilic heretic without committing a hate crime, because those statements are all historical truths.

Further, for your info, every day 5 times a day, I point my ass at Mecca and chant:

Mohammed is a fraudulent huckster and Islam is his grift!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So you to may have something in common? I don't care how people get their looks, as long as they get them.

In other news, I am happy to report that on my flights the last couple of days, I did not get stuck next to one fatty, though there were plenty of them on the plane. By the law of averages, I'm screwed for my next few flights.

Let me check. Fringe. going to SF? club going to Texas?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
Further, for your info, every day 5 times a day, I point my ass at Mecca and chant:

Mohammed is a fraudulent huckster and Islam is his grift!

I go one better by pointing the bottom of my unshoed foot toward Mecca.

Oh and those of you in the ABB crowd who were suspicious of the timing of raising the threat level, they raised it because they caught a muslim in Pakistan and obtained his computer. On his computer was a wealth of information about how these various buildings were being cased, including photos, etc.

For those of you in SF, DC, and NYC (the targeted cities), please keep your eyes out for suspicious activities. BTW - your surveillence is unlikely to amount to much if spend your time watching Christian/Hindu/Scientologist/Mormon/Athetists. It isn't members of those groups who are trying to destroy us.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's not. It's philosophical. But the model is more robust--remember, you don't know what position you'll be in behind the veil of ignorance, so, in such a position, you would choose to ensure that the least well off are the best taken care of.

Right, but those who are against progressive taxation are not proposing a zero sum game, i.e., they are not proposing that that taxes be raised on the classes below them to make up the difference. Or is you point that with theoretically less revenue, the lowest would be harmed by way of reduction in services?

Incidentally, I've heard recently that Russia's flat tax has been fairly successful, in that it has increased revenue collection. Granted, part of that is that they've had such a terrible time collecting taxes to date, but I find the concept interesting.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think Kerry's strategy has been effective thus far. Go to the right of Bush on defence, and when Bush responds, fall back on the VN/don't challenge my patriotism thing. Quotes like this may work against him, but they haven't to date.

I don't think it takes too much effort for the Rs to draw up his lifetime record of appeasement and suggesting to the public that the alternatives are either this RiverRatian Candidate or RRII.

Hello


In other news, did anyone catch yesterday's article that says Wolfie is romantically involved with a feminist Muslim?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
OK, so it is essentially a "do on to others" approach to morally. And applied to taxes, I guess the view would be that progressive taxation is OK because if I was lower in the food chain I would want others to feel more pain than me? Doesn't seem like this is a moral justification at all.

What you're extracting from Rawls is that if you were poor, you'd want to soak the rich more? Jesus, and I thought I was a cynic.

I suppose if I put it that way, I wouldn't think of it as moral either. However, I think the idea is that you remove yourself from the table entirely. If, say. you're not born yet -- and don't know where you'll end up on the economic spectrum -- what kind of taxation system would you devise? Presumably, many people would agree that taxing (on a percentage basis) the poor somewhat less, and taxing the rich somewhat more, is the most just (and, daresay it, moral) way to allocate taxation levels, which recognizes a variety of competing goods, including the various benefits received by different folks on the spectrum from the government, the relative ability to pay, the need to optimize revenue, etc. As Burger mentioned, there would be an implied limit to the upper end of taxation, because even those on the lower end of the spectrum would understand that you still need incentives to strive to become wealthy in the first place.

Gattigap


ETA, what Burger said.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I explained my methodology, while admitting it's an inexact science. He seems to be looking to the right of the photographer, and his follow-through looks like it was aimed there, so I think the trajectory of the ovoid is different from its rotational axis.

Look right throw left- throw off the cornerbacks. Invade Iraq, throw off the Iranian who you're really fixin to fuck with.

Michelangelo was correct about the position of Laocoön's arm in the Agesander, Athenedoros and Polydorus marble of the Laocoön Group, but he had to wait until 1957 to be vindicated over Raphael. The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.

for those of you who went to a bad hs, like me, Laocoön was a Trojan priest strangled by sea snakes, sent by the gods who favored the Greeks, while he was sacrificing at the altar of Neptune. Laocoön was killed because he had tried to warn the Trojan citizens of the danger of bringing in the wooden horse, he incurred the wrath of the gods.

That is, a traitor to what's right. As such, he's a bad analogy for W. Maybe you can waive the image to Penske for a Kerry/French reference

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, but those who are against progressive taxation are not proposing a zero sum game, i.e., they are not proposing that that taxes be raised on the classes below them to make up the difference. Or is you point that with theoretically less revenue, the lowest would be harmed by way of reduction in services?

We seem at this point to be passing in the night. Gatti and (supposedly) Sidd rightly say that progressive taxationis philosophically justifiable based on Rawls. (I'll note it's probably morally justified by the bible, but, then again, so is slavery purportedly). You're saying progressive taxation is generally unfair because it's too progressive.

Well, both can be right. In general, progressive taxes are philosophically supported by Rawls, but perhaps not to some degree.

And, I'll note, that the Reagan revolution appears to have benefitted everyone, which suggests that it meets the Rawlsian test of justice.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Incidentally, I've heard recently that Russia's flat tax has been fairly successful, in that it has increased revenue collection. Granted, part of that is that they've had such a terrible time collecting taxes to date, but I find the concept interesting.

In that case, you'd probably be thrilled to hear about the new NY Times Best-seller from our very own fiction novelist Dennis Hastert, who among other things advocates the institution of a consumption tax and the abolition of both the income tax and the IRS.

Which would be nifty, except that it wouldn't work.

-- BLOG ALERT! BLOG ALERT! --

Not Me, Hank, women, children, and those with weak constitutions should avert their eyes and scroll, because what follows is an excerpt from a blog. I mention it here because this Kevin Drum guy has compiled the responses to the ide (internal links in original).

• Forget the idea of a national sales tax. It's common knowledge among tax experts that sales tax levels much above 10% don't work because the incentives to cheat are simply too great. Many states already have sales taxes close to this level, and tacking on an extra 20% in federal sales tax is a complete nonstarter.
  
  
  So how about a value added tax instead? Instead of one big tax tacked on to the final consumer sale, a VAT breaks things up into smaller pieces by taxing the amount of value added to goods and services at each stage of production — and while it may sound more complicated than a sales tax, it turns out that it's actually easier to monitor and control. Tax experts tend to like VATs for a variety of reasons.
  
  But here's the problem: VATs don't raise nearly as much money as breathless newspaper op-eds would have you believe. Take Great Britain as an example: it has a basic VAT rate of 17.5% (excluding food and a few other items), and last year this raised (roughly) $100 billion. This is approximately 6% of Great Britain's GDP.
  
  In America, personal and corporate income taxes account for about 10% of GDP. This means that if we adopted a VAT similar to Great Britain's, and we wanted to use to it to abolish the IRS completely, our basic VAT rate would have to be around 30%. Ouch.
  
  Because of this, Great Britain, like other countries, does not rely solely on VAT. In fact, the Brits have all the same taxes we do: an income tax (22% is the basic rate), social security, capital gains, stamp duties, excise taxes, inheritance tax, corporation taxes, etc.
  
  
  Sales taxes and VATs are examples of consumption taxes, which are designed to tax what you consume, not what you earn. So another way to implement a consumption tax is to keep our tax system the way it is but exclude taxes on all investment income: capital gains, dividends, savings, etc. By definition, everything that's left over is money that's spent on consumption. The economic effect ends up being pretty similar to a VAT.
  
  Unfortunately, this wouldn't abolish the IRS, it would just eliminate taxes on investment income. Now, there are some economists who think this is a good idea, and there are lots of wealthy Republican contributors who think this is a great idea, but you'd better check your wallet before you decide you like it too. Investment income is still mostly an artifact of wealth, and if we allow wealthy taxpayers off the hook for paying taxes on their investments we have to make up this revenue somewhere else. That means — surprise! — higher rates on everyone else.

Gattigap

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Or are you looking for the Mrs. Howell look?

Allow me to retort:

find a photo from any era where Hillary doesn't induce vomiting.

as to today: you ask me will I accept a spin of the wheel for a night w/ Barbara Bush? Hell yes. 50% chance of hitting the jackpot- ask Club if you don't get this one.

And even if i end up w/ granma- give a brother a break- she still gots a lil somethin somethin what gets a man going

Conf. to GGG: you so..... got a pass on a perfect Gilligan episode reply

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
-- BLOG ALERT! BLOG ALERT! --

There were alot of flawed assumptions in that blog. And many bare conclusions.