When liberals face reality

[Foxfyre]

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

How we treat our citizens is a reflection on our society. Taxes are there for the good of all. Each specific program may not benefit you but are there for the greater good. Don't doubt for a minute that the majority of our tax legislation benifits the wealthy

We could only hope that taxes are there for the good of all. That was the Founders' intent I believe--they saw the necessity to collect taxes to pay for the Constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the federal government and those responsibilities were intended to benefit every U.S. citizen without prejudice or favoritism. To a man, they believed that it was not the Constitutionally authorized responsibility of government to provide anything more than protection of the Constitutionally protected rights of any individual.

They rightfully knew that there was no way for government to provide for Citizen B at the expense of Citizen A or to provide any form of charity without such being a corrupting influence on both government and the beneficiaries of government largesse.

Generally speaking, and allowing for excpetions, where conservatives and liberals differ most is that conservatives see how we treat our citizens as responsibility of individual members of society, while liberals see government as the solution for all of societies problems.

Taxes spent irresponsibly or to curry favor or to buy votes or to increase the wealth and power of those elected to administer the government do not benefit all and do not promote the greater good. But he who robs Peter to pay Paul will always be able to depend on the loyaty and support of Paul.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Affordable education is the next hurdle we need to attack Outside of helathcare, nothing has gone up in cost as much as a college education. While healthcare can point to expensive new medical procedures, there is nothing radically different in our education system to justify the outlandish costs.

Why does a single class cost $3000 ?

Who's gonna pay for it? Your children? Your children's children? Your children's children's children?

Do you have any concept of the following words:

Debt
Bankrupt

Any grasp of the concept that this 'healthcare' bill is actually bullshit? It won't achieve what Obama set out to achieve with it. Do you understand that?

Seriously, I can understand why you want what you want but.... This is not going to achieve it and in 10 years time you will deny that you ever supported it.

Rightwinger doesn't care about any of that....all he wants is a freebee on someone elses dime...his new plan for college education is to.....TAX THE RICH some more....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh, of course, the budgets and spending habits of California's government in the last TWENTY FIVE plus years have NOTHING to do with it. Then there is UCLA itself. They had no say in how they used the money sent to them year after year.

California has had predominantly Republican Governors the last century or so. Interesting the debt burden they have vs the debt burden Bush 1 & 2 and Reagan left us with.

Even back in my college days I was amazed at the inflation happening on campuses. One I went to decided to build a number of new huge buildings to improve its image. Is that the problem all over the country?

 

[saveliberty]

Oh, of course, the budgets and spending habits of California's government in the last TWENTY FIVE plus years have NOTHING to do with it. Then there is UCLA itself. They had no say in how they used the money sent to them year after year.

California has had predominantly Republican Governors the last century or so. Interesting the debt burden they have vs the debt burden Bush 1 & 2 and Reagan left us with.

Even back in my college days I was amazed at the inflation happening on campuses. One I went to decided to build a number of new huge buildings to improve its image. Is that the problem all over the country?

California has had a predominantly liberal bend for at least the last fifty years. The schools and the state government played chicken and lost. Now the students get to pay. The same fate awaits all of us in health care.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Oh, of course, the budgets and spending habits of California's government in the last TWENTY FIVE plus years have NOTHING to do with it. Then there is UCLA itself. They had no say in how they used the money sent to them year after year.

California has had predominantly Republican Governors the last century or so. Interesting the debt burden they have vs the debt burden Bush 1 & 2 and Reagan left us with.

Even back in my college days I was amazed at the inflation happening on campuses. One I went to decided to build a number of new huge buildings to improve its image. Is that the problem all over the country?

and here in this post lies your failure to grasp reality once again.....you want to blame it on Republican governors...what a foolish prospect since the DEMOCRAT LEGISLATURE is the body that writes Bills and then votes them into law. Arnold signs it because he got something in return for his signature or a veto would be overidden...but right now California will take money wherever they can get it.....and a little economics lesson for you...when your broke ass, living in the streets parents cannot afford to send you to college or cosign your student loan because their credit rating is fucked, the enrollment lists get smaller, this means less money coming in from tuition fees...this means the overpaid hyperliberal asshole professors either get laid off (NOT going to happen because of te union agreement) or you raise tuition on the few who can still afford it.

Look what happened.

 

[rightwinger]

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

How we treat our citizens is a reflection on our society. Taxes are there for the good of all. Each specific program may not benefit you but are there for the greater good. Don't doubt for a minute that the majority of our tax legislation benifits the wealthy

We could only hope that taxes are there for the good of all. That was the Founders' intent I believe--they saw the necessity to collect taxes to pay for the Constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the federal government and those responsibilities were intended to benefit every U.S. citizen without prejudice or favoritism. To a man, they believed that it was not the Constitutionally authorized responsibility of government to provide anything more than protection of the Constitutionally protected rights of any individual.

They rightfully knew that there was no way for government to provide for Citizen B at the expense of Citizen A or to provide any form of charity without such being a corrupting influence on both government and the beneficiaries of government largesse.

Generally speaking, and allowing for excpetions, where conservatives and liberals differ most is that conservatives see how we treat our citizens as responsibility of individual members of society, while liberals see government as the solution for all of societies problems.

Taxes spent irresponsibly or to curry favor or to buy votes or to increase the wealth and power of those elected to administer the government do not benefit all and do not promote the greater good. But he who robs Peter to pay Paul will always be able to depend on the loyaty and support of Paul.

Completely off base

They rightfully knew that there was no way for government to provide for Citizen B at the expense of Citizen A or to provide any form of charity without such being a corrupting influence on both government and the beneficiaries of government largesse.

That is exactly what the tax structure of the day did. There were no income taxes. Taxes were collected from landowners. Most of the population did not own land and fell into the category of Citizen B. The Citizen A's of colonial America owned land and paid the taxes to run the government.

Our founding fathers realized the same thing that todays legislators realize. Namely, you can't get blood from a stone. People who did not own land could not afford to pay taxes. Today, people who barely make enough to survive cannot be expected to pay the lions share of the tax burden, but they do pay more than the working class of Colonial America

 

[PatekPhilippe]

how we treat our citizens is a reflection on our society. Taxes are there for the good of all. Each specific program may not benefit you but are there for the greater good. Don't doubt for a minute that the majority of our tax legislation benifits the wealthy

we could only hope that taxes are there for the good of all. That was the founders' intent i believe--they saw the necessity to collect taxes to pay for the constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the federal government and those responsibilities were intended to benefit every u.s. Citizen without prejudice or favoritism. To a man, they believed that it was not the constitutionally authorized responsibility of government to provide anything more than protection of the constitutionally protected rights of any individual.

They rightfully knew that there was no way for government to provide for citizen b at the expense of citizen a or to provide any form of charity without such being a corrupting influence on both government and the beneficiaries of government largesse.

Generally speaking, and allowing for excpetions, where conservatives and liberals differ most is that conservatives see how we treat our citizens as responsibility of individual members of society, while liberals see government as the solution for all of societies problems.

Taxes spent irresponsibly or to curry favor or to buy votes or to increase the wealth and power of those elected to administer the government do not benefit all and do not promote the greater good. But he who robs peter to pay paul will always be able to depend on the loyaty and support of paul.

completely off base

they rightfully knew that there was no way for government to provide for citizen b at the expense of citizen a or to provide any form of charity without such being a corrupting influence on both government and the beneficiaries of government largesse.

that is exactly what the tax structure of the day did. There were no income taxes. Taxes were collected from landowners. Most of the population did not own land and fell into the category of citizen b. The citizen a's of colonial america owned land and paid the taxes to run the government.

Our founding fathers realized the same thing that todays legislators realize. Namely, you can't get blood from a stone. People who did not own land could not afford to pay taxes. Today, people who barely make enough to survive cannot be expected to pay the lions share of the tax burden, but they do pay more than the working class of colonial america

and they do not!!!!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Generally speaking, and allowing for excpetions, where conservatives and liberals differ most is that conservatives see how we treat our citizens as responsibility of individual members of society, while liberals see government as the solution for all of societies problems

Exactly correct!!!! The difference I see is that liberals pass laws and enact programs to protect people from themselves.....with exceptions of course.

 

[Charles Stucker]

There is the competition aspect but it's also profit aspect in many cases.

I agree with your bit off-topic though. Right now, college is becoming similar to what it was in the 50's and 60's.

What?
In the 50's and 60's college was pretty affordable. At least for State schools. Private schools may have been different, but they were private schools for a reason.
Students could pay for college a lot easier than they can now.
Go find the old rates for tuition and fess, adjust for annual inflation, and compare them with today.
What made the prices climb so high?
Best guess is easy federal loan money creating artificial demand.

 

[rightwinger]

There is the competition aspect but it's also profit aspect in many cases.

I agree with your bit off-topic though. Right now, college is becoming similar to what it was in the 50's and 60's.

What?
In the 50's and 60's college was pretty affordable. At least for State schools. Private schools may have been different, but they were private schools for a reason.
Students could pay for college a lot easier than they can now.
Go find the old rates for tuition and fess, adjust for annual inflation, and compare them with today.
What made the prices climb so high?
Best guess is easy federal loan money creating artificial demand.

In 1974 I paid $650 a year tuition to attend a State University

I could afford to pay tuition, room and board working part time $2 an hour jobs

 

[Foxfyre]

How we treat our citizens is a reflection on our society. Taxes are there for the good of all. Each specific program may not benefit you but are there for the greater good. Don't doubt for a minute that the majority of our tax legislation benifits the wealthy

We could only hope that taxes are there for the good of all. That was the Founders' intent I believe--they saw the necessity to collect taxes to pay for the Constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the federal government and those responsibilities were intended to benefit every U.S. citizen without prejudice or favoritism. To a man, they believed that it was not the Constitutionally authorized responsibility of government to provide anything more than protection of the Constitutionally protected rights of any individual.

They rightfully knew that there was no way for government to provide for Citizen B at the expense of Citizen A or to provide any form of charity without such being a corrupting influence on both government and the beneficiaries of government largesse.

Generally speaking, and allowing for excpetions, where conservatives and liberals differ most is that conservatives see how we treat our citizens as responsibility of individual members of society, while liberals see government as the solution for all of societies problems.

Taxes spent irresponsibly or to curry favor or to buy votes or to increase the wealth and power of those elected to administer the government do not benefit all and do not promote the greater good. But he who robs Peter to pay Paul will always be able to depend on the loyaty and support of Paul.

Completely off base

They rightfully knew that there was no way for government to provide for Citizen B at the expense of Citizen A or to provide any form of charity without such being a corrupting influence on both government and the beneficiaries of government largesse.

That is exactly what the tax structure of the day did. There were no income taxes. Taxes were collected from landowners. Most of the population did not own land and fell into the category of Citizen B. The Citizen A's of colonial America owned land and paid the taxes to run the government.

Our founding fathers realized the same thing that todays legislators realize. Namely, you can't get blood from a stone. People who did not own land could not afford to pay taxes. Today, people who barely make enough to survive cannot be expected to pay the lions share of the tax burden, but they do pay more than the working class of Colonial America

Our Founding Fathers saw taxes as limited and for the stated Consitutional authority of the U.S. government only. And everybody was expected to pay taxes then as now. If you owned property you would be subject to a property tax. If you did not, you were not subject to a property tax. If you purchased alcohol, tobacco products, sugar or certain other products, you paid a tax. If you did not purchase these things, you were not taxed.

It is important to note that the Founders saw it as immoral and a violation of rights to confiscate wealth from one citizen and give that for the benefit of another. The benefits gained from taxes collected were to be shared by all citizens including those who paid the taxes. And that, in a nutshell, was what was intended by the clause ‘general welfare’.

When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Founding Fathers recognized that no government could function if it relied entirely on other governments for its resources, thus the Federal Government was granted the authority to raise taxes. The Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Ever on guard against the power of the central government to eclipse that of the states, the collection of the taxes was left as the responsibility of the State governments.

To pay the debts of the Revolutionary War, Congress levied excise taxes on distilled spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar, carriages, property sold at auctions, and various legal documents. Even in the early days of the Republic, however, social purposes influenced what was taxed. For example, Pennsylvania imposed an excise tax on liquor sales partly "to restrain persons in low circumstances from an immoderate use thereof." Additional support for such a targeted tax came from property owners, who hoped thereby to keep their property tax rates low, providing an early example of the political tensions often underlying tax policy decisions.

Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

When you have more people dependent on the government than those who are not, and when you have fewer people who pay taxes than those who do, the Republic is done for. We will have lost most or all of the freedom the Founders intended when they forged the Constitution, and the USA will never again be the wonderfully successful experiment that it once was.

 

[rightwinger]

It is important to note that the Founders saw it as immoral and a violation of rights to confiscate wealth from one citizen and give that for the benefit of another. The benefits gained from taxes collected were to be shared by all citizens including those who paid the taxes. And that, in a nutshell, was what was intended by the clause ‘general welfare’.

Interesting.....I'd like to read more

Can you provide a link?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is important to note that the Founders saw it as immoral and a violation of rights to confiscate wealth from one citizen and give that for the benefit of another. The benefits gained from taxes collected were to be shared by all citizens including those who paid the taxes. And that, in a nutshell, was what was intended by the clause ‘general welfare’.

Interesting.....I'd like to read more

Can you provide a link?

I did provide a link, as well as a direct quotation from Jefferson highlighted in red. Perhaps you missed it?

And perhaps you could comment on the history posted too, and other relevent comments?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What made the prices climb so high?
Best guess is easy federal loan money creating artificial demand.

There are a few other factors too. The internet revolution wasn't free, and in order to stay current every school had to go under renovation to "wire" the campus. In order to keep lab classes up to date and meet accreditation, many campus have to regularly invest in their science, engineering, and health science infrastructure. Add to that the fact that your average college professor could make 1.5x their salary in private industry, which means schools have had to pay more to keep quality researchers on campus.

All in all, higher education has just gotten expensive, much like healthcare and for the same reasons.

 

[Toronado3800]

and here in this post lies your failure to grasp reality once again.....you want to blame it on Republican governors...what a foolish prospect since the DEMOCRAT LEGISLATURE is the body that writes Bills and then votes them into law. Arnold signs it because he got something in return for his signature or a veto would be overidden...but right now California will take money wherever they can get it.....and a little economics lesson for you...when your broke ass, living in the streets parents cannot afford to send you to college or cosign your student loan because their credit rating is fucked, the enrollment lists get smaller, this means less money coming in from tuition fees...this means the overpaid hyperliberal asshole professors either get laid off (NOT going to happen because of te union agreement) or you raise tuition on the few who can still afford it.

So the governors can't veto a spending bill or budget?

 

[Charles Stucker]

There are a few other factors too. The internet revolution wasn't free, and in order to stay current every school had to go under renovation to "wire" the campus. In order to keep lab classes up to date and meet accreditation, many campus have to regularly invest in their science, engineering, and health science infrastructure. Add to that the fact that your average college professor could make 1.5x their salary in private industry, which means schools have had to pay more to keep quality researchers on campus.

I recall having vacuum tube equipment in my labs. Even though transistors had been invented decades earlier.
University researchers in Scientific fields make the lion's share of their money from research money, often private grants from companies seeking expert research.

Sure, some of the costs are from increased expenditure on necessary equipment, but Supply and Demand works on education prices just like on Car prices. Government money makes demand go up, so prices go up.

 

[rightwinger]

It is important to note that the Founders saw it as immoral and a violation of rights to confiscate wealth from one citizen and give that for the benefit of another. The benefits gained from taxes collected were to be shared by all citizens including those who paid the taxes. And that, in a nutshell, was what was intended by the clause ‘general welfare’.

Interesting.....I'd like to read more

Can you provide a link?

I did provide a link, as well as a direct quotation from Jefferson highlighted in red. Perhaps you missed it?

And perhaps you could comment on the history posted too, and other relevent comments?

Interesting link

I do not disagree with Jefferson in the direct redistribution of wealth in taking wealth from one to give directly to another. Believe it or not, most liberals do not advocate this.
What they do advocate is to relevel the playing field where the distribution of wealth is not so heavily in favor of the wealthy

If the available wealth in this country were looked at as a large pizza sliced into ten slices with ten people to share it. The current distribution would be on person gets nine slices while the other nine fightover the remaining slice.

To balance the tax structure so that the person taking nine slices pays more does not upset Mr Jeffersons interpretation

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting.....I'd like to read more

Can you provide a link?

I did provide a link, as well as a direct quotation from Jefferson highlighted in red. Perhaps you missed it?

And perhaps you could comment on the history posted too, and other relevent comments?

Interesting link

I do not disagree with Jefferson in the direct redistribution of wealth in taking wealth from one to give directly to another. Believe it or not, most liberals do not advocate this.
What they do advocate is to relevel the playing field where the distribution of wealth is not so heavily in favor of the wealthy

If the available wealth in this country were looked at as a large pizza sliced into ten slices with ten people to share it. The current distribution would be on person gets nine slices while the other nine fightover the remaining slice.

To balance the tax structure so that the person taking nine slices pays more does not upset Mr Jeffersons interpretation

The only source of "tax" in Jefferson's time was tariffs on imports. Let's stick to Jefferosn's view by all means.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The only source of "tax" in Jefferson's time was tariffs on imports. Let's stick to Jefferosn's view by all means.

They also had Property Tax, Liquor (and other luxuries) Tax and Poll Taxes.

 

[Gunny]

University of California students protest 32 percent tuition increase - CNN.com

"Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- Angry students at the Davis, California, branch of the University of California refused to vacate the school's administration building Thursday evening in a show of defiance and protest over a 32-percent undergraduate tuition hike instituted by the California Board of Regents earlier in the day."

The discussion probably went something like this. Everyone in California deserves a quality education and an affordable price. This program is deficit neutral. We'll just tax the rich. Skip to present day...

"About 100 University of California police officers tried to keep student protests under control on the UCLA campus today. Officers wore riot gear and used barricades and pepper ball rifles during demonstrations against the student fee increases the UC Regents approved."

Cops in riot gear keep an eye on protesters at UCLA | 89.3 KPCC

Has EVERYONE learned anything?

When exactly do leftwingers face reality?