The Bright Shining Lie

[Said1]

No, it's not. It's about keeping more of an individual's wages in their pocket...letting them keep more of the fruits of their labor. Any income earned from investments is gravy.

High taxes on returns will discourage investing. Long term investing doesn't always see the returns of short term offers either. What does your profolio look like, short or long term? Mine are long term due to affordablity, and the returns are practially zero.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm simply asking you to define your terms. For a more in depth look at the philosophical underpinnings of moral relativism I suggest you go here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

This should help you clarify your terms.

My terms are fine. You're trying to bog down the subject with your bullshit. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Moral relativists HAVE a moral code, though they deride morality in others. Their moral code is socialism.

Let's start at the begining...Shall we?

Socialism rests on the premise that the state is the ultimate arbiter in what is good for society and what is bad for society. From this point of view, it has replaced the godhead of religion with the godhead of state. Both are absolutist in nature, so it would be inapropriate to deem either as "moral relativism". It is the disagreements between these to forms of social absolutism that falls into the realm of descriptive moral relativism as well as metaethical moral relativism. And, as history has shown us, socialist dictatorships have always suppressed religion, viewing it as a competitor for power.

Such disagreements will always appear so long as there is no universally recognized standard of what constitutes right and wrong. We may use religion as the foundation upon which to build the structure of our morality, but there is no real agreement as to whose religion should serve as that foundation. There are far too claims as to whose path is the "One true path...", for religion to be genuinely useful in this arena. Most of the worlds great religions hold similar core values, but the metaphysics used to support those values are the sticking point.

However, suppose we abandon the metaphysical for the empirical in seeking to support the structure of our morals and ethics? Let us look, instead, to the consequences to this human life...in this world...as the yardstick by which our morals and values are judged. Those values which promote the benefit and welfare on oneself, others, or both can be regarded as good, right and useful, and thus may be adopted by all. Those values which promote harm and injury to oneself, others or both are regarded as evil, wrong and useless and are to be discarded on history's midden heap.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let's start at the begining...Shall we?

Socialism rests on the premise that the state is the ultimate arbiter in what is good for society and what is bad for society. From this point of view, it has replaced the godhead of religion with the godhead of state. Both are absolutist in nature, so it would be inapropriate to deem either as "moral relativism".

Correct. neither of them are. They are both fixed, but liberals seem to feel they're open minded in their acceptance of nothing but government control, and scream at non socialists that THEY'RE being close minded.

Let us look, instead, to the consequences to this human life...in this world...as the yardstick by which our morals and values are judged. Those values which promote the benefit and welfare on oneself, others, or both can be regarded as good, right and useful, and thus may be adopted by all. Those values which promote harm and injury to oneself, others or both are regarded as evil, wrong and useless and are to be discarded on history's midden heap.

OK. Let's. Higher taxes causes investors to stop growing their businesses and vexes the creation of new jobs for the new people that are born everyyear. Do you put a premium on allowing the population to grow or are you a perverted and evil population control freak?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, looks like bully pussed out again.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Correct. neither of them are. They are both fixed, but liberals seem to feel they're open minded in their acceptance of nothing but government control, and scream at non socialists that THEY'RE being close minded.


OK. Let's. Higher taxes causes investors to stop growing their businesses and vexes the creation of new jobs for the new people that are born everyyear. Do you put a premium on allowing the population to grow or are you a perverted and evil population control freak?

Cite a source showing that higher taxes will cause investors to "stop growing their businesses".

In the 1950's, the US had the most robust economy in the world. and corporate taxes accounted for some 27% of government revenues, as opposed to 7.5% in 2003. Also during that period, the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest 1% of Americans was around 80% as opposed to about 35% currently. These high rates of taxation didn't seem to hold back investment or the economy.

In the depths of the Great Depression, FDR raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations and led us out of that depression. And America came out of the post-depression era and WW II with an economy that revitalized the world. So don't keep bleating the same sorry crap about how higher taxes stunt economic growth and development. It doesn't wash.

Oh, and yeah, it only makes sense for a sane society to exercise some humane form of population control so as not to outstrip available resources.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, looks like bully pussed out again.

Hmmm...Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Nighty night!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Cite a source showing that higher taxes will cause investors to "stop growing their businesses".

In the 1950's, the US had the most robust economy in the world. and corporate taxes accounted for some 27% of government revenues, as opposed to 7.5% in 2003. Also during that period, the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest 1% of Americans was around 80% as opposed to about 35% currently. These high rates of taxation didn't seem to hold back investment or the economy.

In the depths of the Great Depression, FDR raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations and led us out of that depression. And America came out of the post-depression era and WW II with an economy that revitalized the world. So don't keep bleating the same sorry crap about how higher taxes stunt economic growth and development. It doesn't wash.

It does wash; it's true.



Kennedy cut taxes to grow the economy. Reagan did it. Bush did it. The boom of the eighties is irrefutable. Remember the decade of greed?

It's sad that this denial of economic fact is the lynchpin of your worldview.

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/hot_issue/growth/

The 1960s and 1980s were periods of record sustained high growth, mainly due to the tax cuts and reforms enacted at the beginning of each decade by Kennedy and Reagan, respectively.

The JFK administration, against the advice of many economic advisers, began cutting taxes in 1962, starting with businesses. An investment tax credit encouraged investment and changes in depreciation costs lowered the cost of capital for businesses. The top corporate rate fell from 52 to 48 percent, and the top individual marginal tax rate fell from 90 to 70 percent. The empirical evidence shows that these tax cuts stimulated growth:

The 1980s was another decade marked by sustained economic growth, which was especially remarkable given the stagflation that was strangling the economy by the end of President Carter’s term. From the trough of the recession in 1982 to the peak in 1990, it was the longest peacetime expansion in history.

Reagan’s tax cuts spurred an investment boom, just like in the 1960s after the JFK tax cuts. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 featured a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut. The tax reforms increased incentives to save, work and invest, which increased the productive output of the economy to match the increase in demand.

 

[musicman]

In the depths of the Great Depression, FDR raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations and led us out of that depression.

Wrong.

Q: What got America out of the Great Depression?

A: WWII.

None of Roosevelt's socialist schemes mattered a whit.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So bully, would now admit that your here/now criterion is satisfied best by a generally laissez-faire government? Or do you want the economy to shrink and people to die?

 

[Bullypulpit]

So bully, would now admit that your here/now criterion is satisfied best by a generally laissez-faire government? Or do you want the economy to shrink and people to die?

In a word, No. Unregulated capitalism presupposes a rational society, which we clearly do not have. Until we do though, there will continue to be a need for governemnt interference in the economy through regulatory processes and taxation to blunt the excesses of unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In a word, No. Unregulated capitalism presupposes a rational society, which we clearly do not have. Until we do though, there will continue to be a need for governemnt interference in the economy through regulatory processes and taxation to blunt the excesses of unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism.

No ones suggesting total laissez faire. Stop with your hyperbole and strawmannery.

And just for shits and giggles, how does unregulated capitalism presuppose a rational society? That sounds a like bunch of words strung together that merely sound nice. Care to explain your lexical festoonery?

 

[freeandfun1]

In a word, No. Unregulated capitalism presupposes a rational society, which we clearly do not have. Until we do though, there will continue to be a need for governemnt interference in the economy through regulatory processes and taxation to blunt the excesses of unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism.

I agree with Bully here! Damn. I guess you aren't happy with Clinton's neglect then huh Bully? He let things run amok then saddled those that were legit business folks from the get go with a massive tax increase. Of course, all this led to the fall of the economy which started in earnest in 2000 even though in reality it all started falling apart in 1998 with the Asian economic crisis and his tax increases.

See, you can't have a laissez faire attitude, let everything get out of control, have an economy on the downturn and then hit hard with taxes. I guess he had to wait until Terry McAuliffe made his money on Global X'ing before he coudl do anything to try and slow things down. By then however, it was too late. We were already headed downhill and he just added onto the woes by raising taxes on those that were WISE with their money and on those businesses that had stayed legit during. Too bad he ain't as smart as he things he is.

Glad to see we can finally find common ground on something Bully!

 

[Avatar4321]

Wrong.

Q: What got America out of the Great Depression?

A: WWII.

None of Roosevelt's socialist schemes mattered a whit.

Actually the sad fact is some of Roosevelt's schemes may have prolonged the Depression.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I see RWA is still ranting about "liberals this" and "liberals that", completely forgetting that when you draw broad generalizations and apply characteristics to an entire political spectrum, you sound silly and undermine the strength of your argument. Regardless of the topic, it makes you sound like a dweeb.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I see RWA is still ranting about "liberals this" and "liberals that", completely forgetting that when you draw broad generalizations and apply characteristics to an entire political spectrum, you sound silly and undermine the strength of your argument. Regardless of the topic, it makes you sound like a dweeb.

Would you care then to specify which liberals of said broad political spectrum he would be addressing and which he wouldn't?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I see RWA is still ranting about "liberals this" and "liberals that", completely forgetting that when you draw broad generalizations and apply characteristics to an entire political spectrum, you sound silly and undermine the strength of your argument. Regardless of the topic, it makes you sound like a dweeb.

The label accurately defines a broad segment of the populace. Sit on it.

Look how sad libs are. When they can't win arguments, they actively try to destroy words so things cannot even be referred to.

It's doubleplusungood.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Would you care then to specify which liberals of said broad political spectrum he would be addressing and which he wouldn't?

Is that even English?
Anyway, simply baldly asserting that the liberal label fits a large part of the populace don't make it accurate.

 

[musicman]

Is that even English?
Anyway, simply baldly asserting that the liberal label fits a large part of the populace don't make it accurate.

No - only hard-won personal experience and observation can ascertain that fact.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Oh well, RWA and I have debated about this and that many times, we both know the uselessness of debating anything other than substantive issues.