Posted on 01/31/2006 4:45:23 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Sounds like you have taken too many sociology classes and, as a result, are committing the classic liberal, socialist, communist and fascist error of anthropomorphism by attributing to the welfare state (or anti-welfare state) a human characteristic - noblesse oblige.
Let's be clear that a progressive income tax is designed to take more from some individuals than from others on the mistaken, unproven assertion that a richer person's dollar is "needed" less than a not-so rich person's. Evidence based on discretionary charitable giving clearly indicates that this assertion is wrong - and John Kerry's tax returns are the positive proof points. The voluminous, convoluted and byzantine tax laws are further proof point that legislating equitable tax laws is almost impossible.
You may not think of yourself as a liberal, socialist or communist but you certainly reason as if you were one. Please note the lack of ad hominems.
Look, I often write in a sort of shorthand, skipping precision and many steps. I'm well-aware that the welfare-state is not a person and therefore incapable of noblesse oblige.
But let's get back to basics. The idea behind noblesse-oblige is that no society can survive if the welfare of all its members is not at least considered by the fortunate, the wealthy, the powerful. Another way of saying "no man is an island, entire unto himself". It was hoped that all would understand that. But, of course, they didn't...and don't.
So, at various times in various ways, the state - the collective, the society - has undertaken the task. I believe it began in its modern form with Metternich.
One can argue whether this is more or less effective than private charity, more or less corrupt, but one cannot completely deny its effectiveness or its purpose.
You're right to be worried, because Larry has an actual set of points here. The GOP thinkers are quietly discussing these issues(I hope) as we speak. Even a minor economic tremor, combined with other GOP negatives, could trigger diaster.
But in saying this you say nothing. The issue you started with was the unfairness of the tax cuts because the "rich" (undefined) benefited more than the poor. Given that taxes are to fund government any argument on the level and allocation of tax burdens logically requires a position on the size of government and morality of treating some people differently. Nobody is arguing that some government is necessary - the question is how much. Any movement away from a tangibly equal burden requires a significant justification and cannot simply be asserted as "right". The most equal of taxes is a poll tax. Another "equal" tax is a sales tax. What is not "equal" is a graduated income tax. The reduction in marginal tax rates can be justified as being more equitable. To justify retaining them you must establish some basis for determining fairness. Liberals fail to do this.
P.S. The father of the modern welfare state was definitively not Prince Metternich, but Bismark who used social welfare policies to create the first fascist state and laid the groundwork for WWI (and therefore WWII).
Afraid you're correct. There is no telling what would come next. Perhaps after Roberts and Alito, Bush would feel he didn't owe more to conservatives, and could do some "legacy" polishing late in his Presidency by "reaching out" to liberals, or would just go with another try at a crony pick like Gonzales.
You're right. It was Bismark. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant...or rather not interesting enough to me at this moment to stimulate a reply.
I've just reread my first post on this thread (42) and must recharacterize the tax cuts. I now understand - from another thread - the purpose of those cuts and the difficult choice which led to them.
If one rejects protectionism they were the correct choice...but the GOP will have a hard time explaining them to the public. The President is trying but it's difficult to tell people that the best course for the nation - at this juncture in history - is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Not because the Administration wants it so but because economic and social realities dictate it.
Last comment:
Look carefully at your statement: Which people are you talking about? President Bush cut taxes and got re-elected!! Pres. Bush cut taxes and contributed to managing an economy through two devasting blows, creating more jobs than ever before. Your position quickly degrades to "the rich should pay more because they can afford to pay more" - which takes us back to my first response. This is true for some and definitively not true for others, especially those endeavoring to build businesses. But I repeat myself.
As long as the economy is good your reasoning is good.
I said it was my last, but I just found this on another thread:
St. Fleur withdraws as Reilly's running mate
Boston Globe ^ | February 1, 2006 | Frank Phillips
Posted on 02/01/2006 5:35:44 PM EST by MassRepublicanFlyersFan
State Representative Marie St. Fleur today pulled out as a candidate for lieutenant governor after the Boston Globe reported that she has delinquent tax debts in three of the last four years and owes $40,000 in student loans, a senior Democrat said today.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: REILLY; STFLEUR; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
Massachusetts politics!
1 posted on 02/01/2006 5:35:48 PM EST by MassRepublicanFlyersFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I am sure she was against the tax cuts!!!!!!!!!!! Another Democrat, another hypocrit. (Just as bad as the sinning evangelicals and pedofile priests.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.