When liberals face reality

[Annie]

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?

They don't, they want to change reality.

 

[saveliberty]

We The People... Must Pay Taxes | American History 101 - PennLive.com

"To pay for the war, the post Revolutionary War era brought about many new taxes. 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."

So where are the taxes for "general welfare"? Just war debts huh? Sort of like why we got an income tax. War debt, not "general welfare".

Jefferson, to "promote the general welfare" once wrote:


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."

 

[Annie]

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

"Excessive taxation... will carry reason and reflection to every
man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas
Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.

Bottom line most of the 'founders' led a revolution based upon the idea of no taxation without representation. They found during the Revolution they really needed to have a real way to raise revenues, not wait for people to decide to send in what they thought fair.

They knew that they had unleashed ideas regarding taxes that needed to be reined in, but not too much.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But the law of supply and demand is also governed by the need/want that exists for certain products. The American public, for instance, will buy and consume only so much bread no matter how much is made available. So increasing the supply will not significantly increase the demand even if the cost is significantly lowered. Make the price more costly than what the people are willing to pay, however, and they will bake their own bread or do without. In such cases, greatly increasing the price will reduce the profits. It has been explained to me thusly:

The capitalist who profits most will be proficient in:

a) Identifying and providing a product that people want
b) Utilizing the most economical means to produce the desired product.
b) Charging the maximum amount to generate the most profit in sales.

The capitalist who fails to incorporate all three components of maximum profit will profit less than the one who does understand these three principles. And he will be in danger of losing much or all of his profits to the competitor who does understand them.

It should be observed that any time the government presumes to intervene in any component of the process, the system works less well or not at all, and the result can be less prosperity for all concerned from the provider to the consumer and those industries who depend on both.

 

[Foxfyre]

We The People... Must Pay Taxes | American History 101 - PennLive.com

"To pay for the war, the post Revolutionary War era brought about many new taxes. 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."

So where are the taxes for "general welfare"? Just war debts huh? Sort of like why we got an income tax. War debt, not "general welfare".

Jefferson, to "promote the general welfare" once wrote:


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."

Perhaps if you read the link I supplied earlier, you would see that you are defining 'general welfare' much differently than Jefferson or any of the other Founders or conservatives today define general welfare.

The 'general welfare' as they defined it had nothing at all to do with charity or benevolence or rescue or entitlements. The 'general welfare' as they defined it had to do with those functions of the federal government that could not be effectively done in the private sector and which benefitted all, not just the 'needy'. In other words they believed in not muzzling the ox that treadeth out the corn and they believe that those who earned their property deserved as much benefit from government action as the beggar on the corner.

Jefferson did not believe that those who failed to provide for themselves and/or their children through any reason had no claim on those who acquired property through their own industry or that of their fathers. Read the quotation again.

 

[Toronado3800]

government presumes to intervene in any component of the process, the system works less well or not at all, and the result can be less prosperity for all concerned from the provider to the consumer and those industries who depend on both.

Sometimes its necessary. The catalytic converter and removing lead from paint are two examples which pop to mind quickly

 

[saveliberty]

We The People... Must Pay Taxes | American History 101 - PennLive.com

"To pay for the war, the post Revolutionary War era brought about many new taxes. 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."

So where are the taxes for "general welfare"? Just war debts huh? Sort of like why we got an income tax. War debt, not "general welfare".

Jefferson, to "promote the general welfare" once wrote:


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."

Perhaps if you read the link I supplied earlier, you would see that you are defining 'general welfare' much differently than Jefferson or any of the other Founders or conservatives today define general welfare.

The 'general welfare' as they defined it had nothing at all to do with charity or benevolence or rescue or entitlements. The 'general welfare' as they defined it had to do with those functions of the federal government that could not be effectively done in the private sector and which benefitted all, not just the 'needy'. In other words they believed in not muzzling the ox that treadeth out the corn and they believe that those who earned their property deserved as much benefit from government action as the beggar on the corner.

Jefferson did not believe that those who failed to provide for themselves and/or their children through any reason had no claim on those who acquired property through their own industry or that of their fathers. Read the quotation again.

I think you misunderstand my post. I was pointing out taxes were meant to pay war debts. Jefferson never intended taxes to be for general welfare purposes as modern liberals believe and define it.

 

[Foxfyre]

We The People... Must Pay Taxes | American History 101 - PennLive.com

"To pay for the war, the post Revolutionary War era brought about many new taxes. 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."

So where are the taxes for "general welfare"? Just war debts huh? Sort of like why we got an income tax. War debt, not "general welfare".

Jefferson, to "promote the general welfare" once wrote:


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."

Perhaps if you read the link I supplied earlier, you would see that you are defining 'general welfare' much differently than Jefferson or any of the other Founders or conservatives today define general welfare.

The 'general welfare' as they defined it had nothing at all to do with charity or benevolence or rescue or entitlements. The 'general welfare' as they defined it had to do with those functions of the federal government that could not be effectively done in the private sector and which benefitted all, not just the 'needy'. In other words they believed in not muzzling the ox that treadeth out the corn and they believe that those who earned their property deserved as much benefit from government action as the beggar on the corner.

Jefferson did not believe that those who failed to provide for themselves and/or their children through any reason had no claim on those who acquired property through their own industry or that of their fathers. Read the quotation again.

I think you misunderstand my post. I was pointing out taxes were meant to pay war debts. Jefferson never intended taxes to be for general welfare purposes as modern liberals believe and define it.

Apologies. I did misunderstand your post, though I think Jefferson, along with the other original leaders of the U.S. government, understood that taxes would be necessary to fund the various Constitutionally mandated functions of government. Initially the first duty was to pay the people's debt which was the war debt. But I think funding of the 'general welfare' was never a consideration because the Founders did not see providing the general welfare as a function of the Federal government. Whatever the Federal government did, however, was to promote the general welfare which, again, was seen as benefitting all citizens alike. They saw the evil and danger in favoring one group over another or deeming one group worthy to receive while another was not.

 

[Foxfyre]

government presumes to intervene in any component of the process, the system works less well or not at all, and the result can be less prosperity for all concerned from the provider to the consumer and those industries who depend on both.

Sometimes its necessary. The catalytic converter and removing lead from paint are two examples which pop to mind quickly

There is, I think, a difference between interference in the processes of capitalism and regulation that promotes the general welfare and/or protects our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness--i.e. that which prohibits us from doing intended or unintended violence to each other--and interference in the processes of capitalism and the free market.

Thomas Sowell once explained why government should not dictate that there cannot be 'price gouging' in times of crises. In the wake of a deadly hurricane, for instance, motel owners sometimes jack the price of a motel room up double, triple, guadruple the normal rate.

Immoral you say? Perhaps, but the effect is that a large family that might rent two or three rooms will make do with one leaving rooms available to others. People who might buy a couple dozen gallons of bottled water at the normal rate will make do with the bare minimum they can get by on at $10.00 or more a gallon thus leaving water for others who must have it. Philosophically and aesthetically, we might feel disgust at such practices, but the net effect of letting the law of supply and demand work generaly does provide the most benefit to the most people.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

In the process of 'leveling the playing field, the liberals have now accomplished a situation in which almost half of U.S. citizens pay essentially no federal income taxes at all. We therefore have a situation in which almost half of citizens who have absolutely no stake whatsoever in tax policy, so long as it doesn't involve them, voting for the people who will set the tax policy. Even a liberal should be able to see how corrupting and dangerous this situation is, and how it puts everybody's freedoms and liberties at jeopardy.

Again if you look at what Jefferson is saying, the Constitution intends that those who acquire property (wealth) through their own legal and ethical industry or that of their fathers should have sole right and title to that property. Those who themselves or their fathers have not prospered as much should have no claim on anybody else's property, nor should their elected leaders have any ability to claim somebody else's property on their behalf.

Whatever taxes are collected by whatever formula should be spent on what will benefit every citizen equally, rich and poor alike. Nobody should be punished by the government for being poor, but neither should anybody be punished by the government for doing what is necessary to achieve success and prosperity. Promoting the general welfare paves the way for everybody to have opportunity to prosper to the best of his/her ability, but it was never intended to achieve equality of results in the effort.

 

[Avatar4321]

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 ?

Because for decades you've been handing free money to students giving the schools greater demand for services. When more people compete, it drives up prices.

Normally, this would balance out at some point. But because you continue to provide easy money for people no matter how high the costs get, the schools get away with it.

Naturally what your proposing about "affordable" education will likely just make the prices even higher than before.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Again if you look at what Jefferson is saying, the Constitution intends that those who acquire property (wealth) through their own legal and ethical industry or that of their fathers should have sole right and title to that property. Those who themselves or their fathers have not prospered as much should have no claim on anybody else's property, nor should their elected leaders have any ability to claim somebody else's property on their behalf.

Inheritance taxes ideally prevent an idle "Aristocracy of Wealth" from accumulating and consuming to the point that no one else has anything.
We see some of this now with CEO's chosen from major investors. Major investors who inherited wealth and use it to generate new wealth by giving themselves enormous salaries in their chosen companies. Even when they run the company badly. A friend of mine experienced that when the IT company he worked for went public and the new CEO, through mismanagement, drove it out of the market, even though the company was exceptionally well positioned to dominate the market.
I realize part of the problem is the structure of Capital Gains Tax which spurs companies to adopt bizarre models with no dividends to get around excessive taxation, but the true result is to move the "big" investors into the boardroom where they work only for their benefit, not the company. This results in both the small investors and the workers getting less return (for their investment or labor) than they otherwise might.
Unfortunately the Inheritance tax is so poorly managed that it penalizes the moderately prosperous far more than the grotesquely wealthy.
Until this sort of issue is addressed there will continue to be inequities which raise peoples hackles and contribute to the liberal "tax, tax, tax" mantra. A mantra which is applied as a burden, not to the enormously wealthy, but the working class.

 

[editec]

Reality?

You can't face reality.

Reality is that we have trillions to kill people and to imprison people but not eough to educate the next generation.

What sad little people you right wing cranks are.

So hateful and selfish and stupidly shortsighted.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again if you look at what Jefferson is saying, the Constitution intends that those who acquire property (wealth) through their own legal and ethical industry or that of their fathers should have sole right and title to that property. Those who themselves or their fathers have not prospered as much should have no claim on anybody else's property, nor should their elected leaders have any ability to claim somebody else's property on their behalf.

Inheritance taxes ideally prevent an idle "Aristocracy of Wealth" from accumulating and consuming to the point that no one else has anything.
We see some of this now with CEO's chosen from major investors. Major investors who inherited wealth and use it to generate new wealth by giving themselves enormous salaries in their chosen companies. Even when they run the company badly. A friend of mine experienced that when the IT company he worked for went public and the new CEO, through mismanagement, drove it out of the market, even though the company was exceptionally well positioned to dominate the market.
I realize part of the problem is the structure of Capital Gains Tax which spurs companies to adopt bizarre models with no dividends to get around excessive taxation, but the true result is to move the "big" investors into the boardroom where they work only for their benefit, not the company. This results in both the small investors and the workers getting less return (for their investment or labor) than they otherwise might.
Unfortunately the Inheritance tax is so poorly managed that it penalizes the moderately prosperous far more than the grotesquely wealthy.
Until this sort of issue is addressed there will continue to be inequities which raise peoples hackles and contribute to the liberal "tax, tax, tax" mantra. A mantra which is applied as a burden, not to the enormously wealthy, but the working class.

Interesting observations though I think inheritance taxes were imposed to increase the coffers (and power) of government and not for any altruistic effort to keep the few from acquiring all the resources. As for mismanaged corporations, that should be their problem and not the problem of the federal government. There is room for laws and regulation that prevent corporations from misleading or cheating their employees without their knowledge, but if one corporation fails, in a free market system, another will fill the vacuum left.

We could also promote better ethics in corporate America by re-establishing the basic American virtues of God, country, honesty, hard work, ethical behavior, and encouraging people to embrace and reward those. I am reasonably certain that 'bad' corporations would then be persuaded to clean up their act when they found the people rewarding 'good' corporations with their loyalty and money.

I am 100% certain that the federal government attempting to micromanage corporate America will make things much much worse.

I am also 100% certain that a free market and a free people, regulated only to the point that we cannot do violence to each other with impunity, will not place most wealth in the hands of a few but will rather encourage more people to engage in industry that produces wealth. That is why America has truly been a great experiment where the poorest of citizens could aspire to become rich and achieve prosperity and do so in unprecedented numbers. Our current government seems intent on reversing all or most of the freedoms that made the great experiment a success, however.

 

[Annie]

Universities are non-profit (well, at least the accredited ones - the ones with some sort of academic reputation). I see no parallel to universities in the 50s and 60s at all. They accept almost anyone now. The SAT-II is a freaking joke and a new trend is not requiring any admissions tests. A BS or BA is now a dime a dozen as a result of that combined with a desire to retain those who should not be retained (thank you US News and World Report). Coddling of the incapable is all the trend - so very PC, too.

I'm referring to the costs of college becoming so expensive that it's becoming a place for people who are wealthier who can only afford it.

Don't even get me started on the SATs, another racket and joke. As for colleges accepting almost anyone, you're seeing that trend reverse too.

That's bullshit. Higher education has always been the bastion of the wealthy, with the brilliant allowed in for free.

Problem for last 40 years, they are allowing ijits in for free; curtailing ability for really brilliant people, without the money; while still catering to the elite. You are a bright, not brilliant snob.

An article dealing with just this topic:

When the Public Coffers Run Dry - Megan McArdle

When the Public Coffers Run Dry

25 Nov 2009 02:08 pm
Michael O'Hare will probably be surprised to find that I agree with him (one hopes pleasantly), but I think that his post on higher education is extremely well done. He makes two important points. First, the American model of education really is superior to the notion of making it free, and not merely because this usually represents a net transfer to the affluent:
...

I'll leave the calumny about Republicans, and brussels sprouts, aside, and focus on the core, which is important. People plan their lives around public programs. Allowing an unsustainable program to run until it comes to a screeching halt is often worse than having no program. The UC system is very good, and I am in no way suggesting that we would be better off if it didn't exist. But many, many California students, and their parents, planned their lives around a reasonable expectation of what in-state tuition would be. The protests are childish, but the rage underneath them is understandable: if you suddenly have to leave school because legislators have broken your implied social contract, you're probably going to be pretty mad.

California could have dealt with its budget problems gradually--it's not like you couldn't see this mismatch coming, unless you thought that asset prices would always rise at 10% a year. But legislators wanted to give voters goodies now, and voters rewarded them for it. Now everyone's getting what they asked for: disaster.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm referring to the costs of college becoming so expensive that it's becoming a place for people who are wealthier who can only afford it.

Don't even get me started on the SATs, another racket and joke. As for colleges accepting almost anyone, you're seeing that trend reverse too.

That's bullshit. Higher education has always been the bastion of the wealthy, with the brilliant allowed in for free.

Problem for last 40 years, they are allowing ijits in for free; curtailing ability for really brilliant people, without the money; while still catering to the elite. You are a bright, not brilliant snob.

An article dealing with just this topic:

When the Public Coffers Run Dry - Megan McArdle

When the Public Coffers Run Dry

25 Nov 2009 02:08 pm
Michael O'Hare will probably be surprised to find that I agree with him (one hopes pleasantly), but I think that his post on higher education is extremely well done. He makes two important points. First, the American model of education really is superior to the notion of making it free, and not merely because this usually represents a net transfer to the affluent:
...

I'll leave the calumny about Republicans, and brussels sprouts, aside, and focus on the core, which is important. People plan their lives around public programs. Allowing an unsustainable program to run until it comes to a screeching halt is often worse than having no program. The UC system is very good, and I am in no way suggesting that we would be better off if it didn't exist. But many, many California students, and their parents, planned their lives around a reasonable expectation of what in-state tuition would be. The protests are childish, but the rage underneath them is understandable: if you suddenly have to leave school because legislators have broken your implied social contract, you're probably going to be pretty mad.

California could have dealt with its budget problems gradually--it's not like you couldn't see this mismatch coming, unless you thought that asset prices would always rise at 10% a year. But legislators wanted to give voters goodies now, and voters rewarded them for it. Now everyone's getting what they asked for: disaster.

It is not unreasonable to apply this same logoc to health care reform. In fact, I think it will reach its conclusion even faster and with more catastropic results.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm referring to the costs of college becoming so expensive that it's becoming a place for people who are wealthier who can only afford it.

Don't even get me started on the SATs, another racket and joke. As for colleges accepting almost anyone, you're seeing that trend reverse too.

That's bullshit. Higher education has always been the bastion of the wealthy, with the brilliant allowed in for free.

Problem for last 40 years, they are allowing ijits in for free; curtailing ability for really brilliant people, without the money; while still catering to the elite. You are a bright, not brilliant snob.

An article dealing with just this topic:

When the Public Coffers Run Dry - Megan McArdle

When the Public Coffers Run Dry

25 Nov 2009 02:08 pm
Michael O'Hare will probably be surprised to find that I agree with him (one hopes pleasantly), but I think that his post on higher education is extremely well done. He makes two important points. First, the American model of education really is superior to the notion of making it free, and not merely because this usually represents a net transfer to the affluent:
...

I'll leave the calumny about Republicans, and brussels sprouts, aside, and focus on the core, which is important. People plan their lives around public programs. Allowing an unsustainable program to run until it comes to a screeching halt is often worse than having no program. The UC system is very good, and I am in no way suggesting that we would be better off if it didn't exist. But many, many California students, and their parents, planned their lives around a reasonable expectation of what in-state tuition would be. The protests are childish, but the rage underneath them is understandable: if you suddenly have to leave school because legislators have broken your implied social contract, you're probably going to be pretty mad.

California could have dealt with its budget problems gradually--it's not like you couldn't see this mismatch coming, unless you thought that asset prices would always rise at 10% a year. But legislators wanted to give voters goodies now, and voters rewarded them for it. Now everyone's getting what they asked for: disaster.

While there are certainly some exceptions and deviations from the norm, the fact is that anything the government involves itself in is going to be more expensive than if it was left to the private sector. I suppose there are numerous reasons for that, but I think you cannot leave out:

1) Less attention to cost when it isn't your own money you are risking or spending.

2) Temptation to use taxpayer money to favor a particular constituency to increase one's own power, prestige, job security, and/or wealth.

3) The belief that the money belongs to the government and not the people, and it is through government benevolence that we get to retain any of our own property or earnings at all. (Not to mention that we are seen as greedy if we want liberty and power to use our own property and earnings for whatever legal purpose we choose.)

As a result of these human failings, we have seen every single entitlement program initiated by the government spiral out of control and become unsustainable. We have seen health care and education become less and less affordable the more the federal govrenment has involved itself.

I wonder if we will have to completely collapse the system before some folks will wise up? And then will it be too late to correct our foolish course?

 

[rightwinger]

We have seen health care and education become less and less affordable the more the federal govrenment has involved itself

How can you possibly justify such a bizzare conclusion?

 

[saveliberty]

We have seen health care and education become less and less affordable the more the federal govrenment has involved itself

How can you possibly justify such a bizzare conclusion?

Do you deny that education and health care are less affordable?
Please show me how the government has been removing itself from these institutions.
Haven't you mentioned a time or two, that Congress has been lobbied by these industries? It costs millions and millions to do that. Why are they doing that? Oh yeah, because government is involved in how they are run.

 

[Maple]

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 ?

I beleive college tuition has increased on average 14% a year, that's ridiculous and there is no excuse for it, but if you are proposing another government take over of our college institutions you are dead wrong. It would only go down hill from there.

On this issue, of college costs, you and I finally found something to agree on.