CDZ Why do Conservatives believe that America is no longer great?

[320 Years of History]

Fine, but if the man cannot afford to take your fishing class, regardless of why he cannot, then what? Give him a fish? Let him starve because you've neither given him a fish nor taught him how to fish? Rely on someone else to give him a fish or teach him for free? And what happens when nobody (other than the government) is willing to give him a fish?

While there are myriad answers and approaches to resolving the dilemma of the questions above, when it comes to other human beings, and assuming as a nation we concur that no man should be left to starve or be homeless because, as a nation, we are more than adequately wealthy to make sure that never happens, the ones we (the nation) implement must, if one is to be humane to one's countrymen, be the ones (or one) that has the greatest likelihood of working. That is, the one that at the very least is capable of making sure no man starves or goes homeless. Might some approaches have the potential to achieve more than feeding and housing a man? Sure, but if they potentially less adept at achieving the bare minimum for the the greatest number of folks who need it, they are worse choices because they result in more people starving and being homeless.

There's nothing wrong with the human capital development goal you identified above -- teach a man to fish -- indeed it's an excellent and worthy one for which to strive. In setting that as the desired outcome of one's beneficence, one must also consider whether so doing folks are "left behind," so to speak. If one is okay with leaving some behind, fine, but if that's so, own it and tell the citizenry that's the case, that of those who are "left behind," the government's take on that is "Tough. You had your chance and you blew it, or perhaps you didn't, but either way, starve and/or freeze. Best of luck finding individuals who'll take kindly on you and help you out."

The other thing to consider carefully is that when addressing what amount to handouts, one must view the approach differently than were one providing goods and services for a fee. With the handouts, a program strives to achieve its end(s) -- leave nobody hungry, leave nobody homeless, leave nobody uneducated, whatever... -- as inexpensively as possible. To do so, the focus is on what approaches have the greatest potential to achieve those ends, not which approaches have the greatest potential to achieve something over and above them. Again, however, if one wants to define the ends in accordance with human capital development objectives rather than subsistence objectives, fine. There again, one must own it. All that's different is the message: "If you are poor or destitute, the government will give you an education, food, shelter, etc. and those who are not poor/destitute will not receive those things from the government, but instead will pay for them."

Do both sets of ends result in "ticked off" citizens? Yes. In the former, irked folks will come from all levels of society...the poor as well as the "not poor" who feel for them. In the latter, it's going to largely be folks of some means being irked because their taxes are being used to help their fellow citizens rather than their being allowed to "pick and choose" whom to help when they want to.

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

Our society works differently
You fish all day and turn all your catch over to the wealthy. The wealthy takes what they want and allow you to share a fish with your fellow fishermen

Whatever its ills, our society is not feudal.

All one has to do is look at our distribution of wealth to realize that it is

Your earlier remarks all but characterize at a high level a feudal system. While the distribution of wealth may or may not be similar between our society and feudal ones, that similarly (or lack thereof) is incidental, not unavoidably characteristic or causal. Feudal economies and polities may have the depicted wealth distribution, but they are hardly the only ones that can and do; therefore, the distribution of wealth measure isn't germane to establishing whether ours (or another) is or is not a feudal society.

Quite simply, that which looks like a duck is not necessarily a duck.

When you look at the distribution of wealth, you can see that 80% of the population controls 15% of the wealth. As a worker, you may be able to move about within that 15% slice of the pie through initiative, but your ability to eat from the 85% remaining is limited

It is a feudal system that allows the workers to think they have some control over their well being

Red:
The concept you've described is economic mobility. There are two measures of economic mobility:

• Absolute mobility: how likely a person is to exceed their parents’ family income at the same age. In the U.S., 84% of the population exceed their parents' income at the same age.
• Relative mobility: how one's rank on the income ladder compares to their parents, their peers, or even themselves over time. Thirty percent of Americans moved up two quintiles or more in one generation according to a recent Pew Study.

In comparison with other Western nations, the U.S. lags behind all but a few. (click on the chart to access its source)




Having observed that U.S. citizens' mobility is better than some and worse than other nations, the question one must ask is whether there is a way to do something about it. A group of Stanford University researchers in 2015 examine that and found, among other things:

• There is less intergenerational mobility in the United States than is sometimes appreciated by the public, but intergenerational mobility is not declining. When poor children born in 1971 and 1986 are compared, one finds a slight increase (from 8.4 to 9.0 percent) in the chances of reaching the top fifth of the income distribution by age 28.
  
• There is substantial variation within the United States in the prospects for escaping poverty. In the highest-mobility areas of the United States, mobility rates are higher than rates in most other developed countries, and more than 1 in 10 children with parents in the bottom quintile of the income distribution reach the top quintile by adulthood. Poor children in western states have the best chances of making it to the top.
• In the lowest-mobility areas of the United States, which tend to be in the South, fewer than 1 in 20 poor children reach the top quintile, a rate that is lower than in any developed country for which data have been analyzed to date.
• Mobility rates are relatively low in areas with high income and racial segregation. Mobility rates are relatively high in areas with high school quality, local tax rates, social capital, and marriage rates.
  
• Five factors are strongly correlated with upward mobility:
  • Segregation: Upward income mobility is significantly lower in areas with larger African-American populations. However, white individuals in areas with large African-American populations also have lower rates of upward mobility, implying that racial shares matter at the community (rather than individual) level. One mechanism for such a community-level effect of race is segregation. Areas with larger black populations tend to be more segregated by income and race, which could affect both white and black low-income individuals adversely. Indeed, we find a strong negative correlation between standard measures of racial and income segregation and upward mobility. Moreover, we also find that upward mobility is higher in cities with less sprawl, as measured by commute times to work.
  • Income inequality: CZs with larger Gini coefficients have less upward mobility, consistent with the “Great Gatsby curve” documented across countries. In contrast, top 1 percent income shares are not highly correlated with intergenerational mobility both across CZs within the United States and across countries. Although one cannot draw definitive conclusions from such correlations, they suggest that the factors that erode the middle class hamper intergenerational mobility more than the factors that lead to income growth in the upper tail.
  • Proxies for the quality of K-12 education: Areas with higher test scores (controlling for income levels), lower dropout rates, and smaller class sizes have higher rates of upward mobility. In addition, areas with higher local tax rates, which are predominantly used to finance public schools, have higher rates of mobility.
  • Social capital indices (proxies for the strength of social networks and community involvement in an area): Areas of high upward mobility tend to have higher fractions of religious individuals and greater participation in local civic organizations.
  • Family Structure: The strongest predictors of upward mobility are measures of family structure, such as the fraction of single parents in the area. As with race, parents’ marital status does not matter through its effects at the individual level. Children of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility if they live in communities with fewer single parents.
• We find modest correlations between upward mobility and local tax and government expenditure policies, and no systematic correlation between mobility and local labor market conditions, rates of migration, or access to higher education.

In presenting their findings, they note that they are correlations, not causes.


Blue:
??? Say what? A feudal system by it's very nature all but guarantees that workers are absolutely certain they have little to no chance of advancement. It was really quite simple: if one was not "to the manor born," one knew that absent exceptional circumstances, one would never own the land. In a society governed by and for landowners' benefit, nobody with half the sense God gave a goose thought they had any degree of political or economic control or influence.

The hierarchy of feudalism and its accompanying "right by birth" principle ensured that economic mobility was largely nonexistent and not going to happen, and everyone knew it.

 

[oldsoul]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx said that right? Or was it Lenin? Don't remember for sure. Point is, it's communism.

Doesn't every nation on earth follow that quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ?

Can you name a country that doesn't?

Does that make it right? If every nation was declaring war on each other, would that be allthe justifacation you would need to do the same? This country was founded, as became great, BECAUSE we do things differently. Individuality (AKA diversity) is not a dirty word, or concept. Why do liberals never seem to understand this?

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

how about it's just the right thing to do regardless, but given that the right keeps insisting we are the greatest nation on earth, shouldn't we treat our people with the dignity befitting that?

the greatness of a nation is gauged by how it treats its poorest, its sickest, it's oldest and youngest... not by a wild west mentality which says screw everyone who is left behind. that's just absurd.

and you didn't address his point about corporate welfare and subsidizing agriculture while letting children starve.

While I do not recall anyone saying anything on those two topics, I will address them. Both concepts are absurd. Just as with an individual, a company, whether it be a small business (ie. family farm) or a large business (ie. major corporation), it needs to be able to stand on it's own. Subsidising an industry is the government picking winners and losers. I understand that that means some businesses will fail, and family farms will likely disappear. Sad, but it is the reality. Some would say it is sad that we no longer rely on horses for labor and transport, that it is sad that entire industries and ways of life have disappeared because of that. Does that make it right to subsidise those people and industries? I say "no".

the greatness of a nation is gauged by how it treats its poorest, its sickest, it's oldest and youngest... not by a wild west mentality which says screw everyone who is left behind. that's just absurd.

That may very well be how you define the greatness of a nation. I define it not in terms of the lowest, but of the "avearge" or what a person can reasonably expect to be able to achieve.
Here is a question for you: If I work hard and am able to achieve a standard of living that is higher than that of my neighbor, do I then have an obligation to give some of what I have earned to them? What if I have worked harder, or smarter? What if I had the wisdom, and foresight to get a more relavent education?
To make a blanket statement that those with more have an obligation to give to those with less is fundamentaly flawed. What incentive would a person have to achieve more, if they would then have to give a large portion of it away to someone who has done less to earn it? Furthermore, how is it the government's job to ensure that an individual has an arbitrarily determined standard of living? Is that not the responsibility of the individual?
If you have more than me, I have no doubt that you have done more to earn it, and I therefore, have no right to it.

 

[oldsoul]

that government is charged by the constitution to act for "the general welfare".

General welfare meant something different tto the founders than it does today. They where not talking about taking from the more wealthy to give to the less wealthy. They where refering to the job of looking out for the best interests of the nation as a whole. Last I checked the "poorest amoung us" is not the majority. They where refering to the concept that a rising tide lifts all ships, not redistribution of wealth.

 

[oldsoul]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

 

[320 Years of History]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

 

[oldsoul]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

 

[rightwinger]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

 

[jc456]

America is still the greatest country. However, it has fallen from its previous stature.

Why isn't it as great as it was?

We lose wars, we are too dependant on government, our politicians lie to us and spend too much money. We betray our allies and kiss our enemies asses. We hardly manufacture anything ourselvee anymore, we stopped going into space on our own, our president runs around apologizing to other countries. Our borders are porous and our laws are ignored. Our education system is in ruins and our children are getting less and less educated. More and more people are out of work, our debt is so high it may never get repaid. All of the progress we made in race relations has been wiped out.

And a large portion of the population are so ignorant, so lacking in education and critical thinking that they are actually concidering a socialist for president.

I would say that the people who are most lacking in critical thinking capability are those who are voting for a bombastic carnival barker who has no real ideas for solving problems but is claiming he will make America "great again". Do you believe that there is a country in the world that is currently "greater" than the USA? If so, what standards do you apply to make that determination?

it isn't what we think of as how great america is, it is the rest of the world thought. And no the rest of the world is looking at us as chumps. They laugh at us. Our president goes to Paris and promises a194 nations we'll pay them for carbon credits.

and refugee fantasy island.

 

[rightwinger]

America is still the greatest country. However, it has fallen from its previous stature.

Why isn't it as great as it was?

We lose wars, we are too dependant on government, our politicians lie to us and spend too much money. We betray our allies and kiss our enemies asses. We hardly manufacture anything ourselvee anymore, we stopped going into space on our own, our president runs around apologizing to other countries. Our borders are porous and our laws are ignored. Our education system is in ruins and our children are getting less and less educated. More and more people are out of work, our debt is so high it may never get repaid. All of the progress we made in race relations has been wiped out.

And a large portion of the population are so ignorant, so lacking in education and critical thinking that they are actually concidering a socialist for president.

I would say that the people who are most lacking in critical thinking capability are those who are voting for a bombastic carnival barker who has no real ideas for solving problems but is claiming he will make America "great again". Do you believe that there is a country in the world that is currently "greater" than the USA? If so, what standards do you apply to make that determination?

it isn't what we think of as how great america is, it is the rest of the world thought. And no the rest of the world is looking at us as chumps. They laugh at us. Our president goes to Paris and promises a194 nations we'll pay them for carbon credits.

and refugee fantasy island.

They laughed at us when we promised WMDs and came up with nothing

 

[rightwinger]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

The Reagan/Bush tax cuts were pocketed
They did not go to increasing charity

 

[jc456]

America is still the greatest country. However, it has fallen from its previous stature.

Why isn't it as great as it was?

We lose wars, we are too dependant on government, our politicians lie to us and spend too much money. We betray our allies and kiss our enemies asses. We hardly manufacture anything ourselvee anymore, we stopped going into space on our own, our president runs around apologizing to other countries. Our borders are porous and our laws are ignored. Our education system is in ruins and our children are getting less and less educated. More and more people are out of work, our debt is so high it may never get repaid. All of the progress we made in race relations has been wiped out.

And a large portion of the population are so ignorant, so lacking in education and critical thinking that they are actually concidering a socialist for president.

I would say that the people who are most lacking in critical thinking capability are those who are voting for a bombastic carnival barker who has no real ideas for solving problems but is claiming he will make America "great again". Do you believe that there is a country in the world that is currently "greater" than the USA? If so, what standards do you apply to make that determination?

it isn't what we think of as how great america is, it is the rest of the world thought. And no the rest of the world is looking at us as chumps. They laugh at us. Our president goes to Paris and promises a194 nations we'll pay them for carbon credits.

and refugee fantasy island.

They laughed at us when we promised WMDs and came up with nothing

don't disagree! they laugh at us for almost every action lately.

 

[jc456]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

people pay more into charities at higher tax rates to bring down what they owe. It's a way to ensure their money goes where they want it to go. It will always be that way. One would have to know why one gives money to charities.

 

[jillian]

America is still the greatest country. However, it has fallen from its previous stature.

Why isn't it as great as it was?

We lose wars, we are too dependant on government, our politicians lie to us and spend too much money. We betray our allies and kiss our enemies asses. We hardly manufacture anything ourselvee anymore, we stopped going into space on our own, our president runs around apologizing to other countries. Our borders are porous and our laws are ignored. Our education system is in ruins and our children are getting less and less educated. More and more people are out of work, our debt is so high it may never get repaid. All of the progress we made in race relations has been wiped out.

And a large portion of the population are so ignorant, so lacking in education and critical thinking that they are actually concidering a socialist for president.

I would say that the people who are most lacking in critical thinking capability are those who are voting for a bombastic carnival barker who has no real ideas for solving problems but is claiming he will make America "great again". Do you believe that there is a country in the world that is currently "greater" than the USA? If so, what standards do you apply to make that determination?

it isn't what we think of as how great america is, it is the rest of the world thought. And no the rest of the world is looking at us as chumps. They laugh at us. Our president goes to Paris and promises a194 nations we'll pay them for carbon credits.

and refugee fantasy island.

outside of this country they laugh at you.... not our president. they do think our wingnuts are bizarre, though.

have you ever been out of the country or know anyone from out of the country?

 

[oldsoul]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

So, I assume, then that you support higher taxes to do the "work" that charities do not/cannot. How high is high enough? How much of your income are you willing to give to the government? Why should you have the ability to force me to be more charitable? If you really believe that the government is the answer then it would stand to reason that you would be willing to write a check to the IRS for a larger sum than you owe, do you do that? Or do you do as most of us do and try to keep your tax gurden as low as possible?

I find it very interesting that those who say that government is the answer, nearly always also say that someone else should pay for it. The usual target is the "top 1%". According to {{meta.title}}"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, ..."According to the CBO: the buget deficit for FY 2016 is $544 Billion. Budget. Now there are 318,857,056 adults in the US according to census.gov. According to Forbes.com there are about 85 million tax payers in the US. So some quick math here:

• 1% of 318.9 million (rounded) is 3.189 million people are the top 1%.
• Combining the average annual income results in a sum of $2,286,513,000. (I'll just round it to 2.3 billion)
• So, if we taxed the top 1% at 100% we would be about 541.7 billion short of the deficit.
• 541.7 billion divided 85 million ways is about $6,372.94.

Are you paying your fair share?

 

[jc456]

America is still the greatest country. However, it has fallen from its previous stature.

Why isn't it as great as it was?

We lose wars, we are too dependant on government, our politicians lie to us and spend too much money. We betray our allies and kiss our enemies asses. We hardly manufacture anything ourselvee anymore, we stopped going into space on our own, our president runs around apologizing to other countries. Our borders are porous and our laws are ignored. Our education system is in ruins and our children are getting less and less educated. More and more people are out of work, our debt is so high it may never get repaid. All of the progress we made in race relations has been wiped out.

And a large portion of the population are so ignorant, so lacking in education and critical thinking that they are actually concidering a socialist for president.

I would say that the people who are most lacking in critical thinking capability are those who are voting for a bombastic carnival barker who has no real ideas for solving problems but is claiming he will make America "great again". Do you believe that there is a country in the world that is currently "greater" than the USA? If so, what standards do you apply to make that determination?

it isn't what we think of as how great america is, it is the rest of the world thought. And no the rest of the world is looking at us as chumps. They laugh at us. Our president goes to Paris and promises a194 nations we'll pay them for carbon credits.

and refugee fantasy island.

outside of this country they laugh at you.... not our president. they do think our wingnuts are bizarre, though.

have you ever been out of the country or know anyone from out of the country?

No, they don't know me. They laugh at who they know, and that is the president. They also laugh cause a criminal is running as a democratic nominee and there are actual people who will vote for her. Funny stuff.

China almost owns us, they really love laughing at us.
They also know why they have most of our manufacturing jobs and play us. It's why Trump will take this country on and bring jobs back.

 

[rightwinger]

America is still the greatest country. However, it has fallen from its previous stature.

Why isn't it as great as it was?

We lose wars, we are too dependant on government, our politicians lie to us and spend too much money. We betray our allies and kiss our enemies asses. We hardly manufacture anything ourselvee anymore, we stopped going into space on our own, our president runs around apologizing to other countries. Our borders are porous and our laws are ignored. Our education system is in ruins and our children are getting less and less educated. More and more people are out of work, our debt is so high it may never get repaid. All of the progress we made in race relations has been wiped out.

And a large portion of the population are so ignorant, so lacking in education and critical thinking that they are actually concidering a socialist for president.

I would say that the people who are most lacking in critical thinking capability are those who are voting for a bombastic carnival barker who has no real ideas for solving problems but is claiming he will make America "great again". Do you believe that there is a country in the world that is currently "greater" than the USA? If so, what standards do you apply to make that determination?

it isn't what we think of as how great america is, it is the rest of the world thought. And no the rest of the world is looking at us as chumps. They laugh at us. Our president goes to Paris and promises a194 nations we'll pay them for carbon credits.

and refugee fantasy island.

outside of this country they laugh at you.... not our president. they do think our wingnuts are bizarre, though.

have you ever been out of the country or know anyone from out of the country?

They are beyond belief that anyone would support Trump

 

[rightwinger]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

So, I assume, then that you support higher taxes to do the "work" that charities do not/cannot. How high is high enough? How much of your income are you willing to give to the government? Why should you have the ability to force me to be more charitable? If you really believe that the government is the answer then it would stand to reason that you would be willing to write a check to the IRS for a larger sum than you owe, do you do that? Or do you do as most of us do and try to keep your tax gurden as low as possible?

I find it very interesting that those who say that government is the answer, nearly always also say that someone else should pay for it. The usual target is the "top 1%". According to {{meta.title}}"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, ..."According to the CBO: the buget deficit for FY 2016 is $544 Billion. Budget. Now there are 318,857,056 adults in the US according to census.gov. According to Forbes.com there are about 85 million tax payers in the US. So some quick math here:

• 1% of 318.9 million (rounded) is 3.189 million people are the top 1%.
• Combining the average annual income results in a sum of $2,286,513,000. (I'll just round it to 2.3 billion)
• So, if we taxed the top 1% at 100% we would be about 541.7 billion short of the deficit.
• 541.7 billion divided 85 million ways is about $6,372.94.

Are you paying your fair share?

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

 

[oldsoul]

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

So, I assume, then that you support higher taxes to do the "work" that charities do not/cannot. How high is high enough? How much of your income are you willing to give to the government? Why should you have the ability to force me to be more charitable? If you really believe that the government is the answer then it would stand to reason that you would be willing to write a check to the IRS for a larger sum than you owe, do you do that? Or do you do as most of us do and try to keep your tax gurden as low as possible?

I find it very interesting that those who say that government is the answer, nearly always also say that someone else should pay for it. The usual target is the "top 1%". According to {{meta.title}}"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, ..."According to the CBO: the buget deficit for FY 2016 is $544 Billion. Budget. Now there are 318,857,056 adults in the US according to census.gov. According to Forbes.com there are about 85 million tax payers in the US. So some quick math here:

• 1% of 318.9 million (rounded) is 3.189 million people are the top 1%.
• Combining the average annual income results in a sum of $2,286,513,000. (I'll just round it to 2.3 billion)
• So, if we taxed the top 1% at 100% we would be about 541.7 billion short of the deficit.
• 541.7 billion divided 85 million ways is about $6,372.94.

Are you paying your fair share?

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

 

[rightwinger]

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

So, I assume, then that you support higher taxes to do the "work" that charities do not/cannot. How high is high enough? How much of your income are you willing to give to the government? Why should you have the ability to force me to be more charitable? If you really believe that the government is the answer then it would stand to reason that you would be willing to write a check to the IRS for a larger sum than you owe, do you do that? Or do you do as most of us do and try to keep your tax gurden as low as possible?

I find it very interesting that those who say that government is the answer, nearly always also say that someone else should pay for it. The usual target is the "top 1%". According to {{meta.title}}"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, ..."According to the CBO: the buget deficit for FY 2016 is $544 Billion. Budget. Now there are 318,857,056 adults in the US according to census.gov. According to Forbes.com there are about 85 million tax payers in the US. So some quick math here:

• 1% of 318.9 million (rounded) is 3.189 million people are the top 1%.
• Combining the average annual income results in a sum of $2,286,513,000. (I'll just round it to 2.3 billion)
• So, if we taxed the top 1% at 100% we would be about 541.7 billion short of the deficit.
• 541.7 billion divided 85 million ways is about $6,372.94.

Are you paying your fair share?

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

 

[320 Years of History]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

Exactly...and the reason, IMO, is that upon reaching ~$465K/year (in 2015) in income, the tax rates become regressive. Equally important, do you know of most folks who are not wealthy saying that? I don't.

I know that were I to pay less in taxes, I doubt my charitable giving would materially increase, even if it did increase incrementally. I know that my personal situation is such that none of my discretionary spending is going to change because I pay a bit more or a bit less in taxes.

Now if my tax rate were to change by some 20 or 30 percent, well, then my discretionary spending habits would change somewhat; however, even if that change were a decrease, I doubt I'd give tens to hundreds of thousands more to charity. On the other hand, if the change were an increase of that extent, I'd surely give less to charity. The thing is that no recent President has advocated for a tax cut or increase on that scale....two to three percent is the most I've seen, and that's not enough to change anything. One need not even be comfortable for that to be so. The simple fact is that tax cuts and increases are not life changing in nature for most taxpayers, so why they even grumble and grouse about it is beyond me?