Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

[_GlennThigpen]

As do I, but I'm not left-winger.

I would suggest that based on your comments, you are, at least, moderately liberal.

What you reject is the liberal strawman presented by some on the right.

But then again, so do most liberals. (Hence the reason it is a strawman.)

I don't care for labels, i.e. conservative, liberal, left-wing, right-wing, etc. They are all ways of putting people in categories. Just another way of sterotyping and not dealing with the individual or his/her points.

When I see people who are advocates of the progressive, progressive tax system give everything they do not need to help the poor, I will believe that they really care about the poor.

Glenn

[_asbestosman]

I would suggest that based on your comments, you are, at least, moderately liberal.

Yes, I consider myself moderate.

What you reject is the liberal strawman presented by some on the right.

Perhaps, but I also reject statements I actually hear liberals make such as how Christians should feel obligated to vote for these things which forces others to care for the poor, since Christians are obligated to care for the poor. I don't think that's true. However, I do think there are good reasons to force people to pay taxes for such purposes. I just disagree that it is some kind of Christian mandate to force others to help the poor. However, I think that creating a stable society is an obligation of government that Christians should support. In that sense, I do think Christians should vote for social programs.

I also disagree with comparisons I hear liberals make between the rich and poor. Oh, I agree that the comparisons are factual. I simply disagree that such comparisons are relevant. To me that smacks too much of petty jealousy. I will not be a part of it. However, I recognize that I personally enjoy privileges that the poor do not. For that reason I do believe that we need to do more to help. I simply don't care that others have more than me when I already have enough. Greedy guy I am, though, I want more. More makes me feel more secure in case rainy days come. And indeed that is how many families end up poor. Some unexpected medical emergency comes along and they end up in big trouble.

[_asbestosman]

When I see people who are advocates of the progressive, progressive tax system give everything they do not need to help the poor, I will believe that they really care about the poor.

I am willing to have my taxes raised until such is the case.

So why don't I donate it myself instead of voting to force others to help? Because I don't think what I contribute will be sufficient for my political goals (to ensure a more stable society with protection for children, not necessarily equality), and because I believe my first obligation is to my immediate family. If a secure net is in place for my family, then I will not need to save nearly as much and will gladly donate more.

I'm not asking for much of a progressive tax system. I'm asking for a more flat tax rate among those who do have more than enough--which includes me, but does not include the poor.

Oh, and don't forget Warren Buffett. He not only advocates for the poor, he actually puts his money where his mouth is. So no, people who advocate for the poor are not just jealous hypocrites.

[_CaliforniaKid]

abman,

I agree that "the burden should be equal." However, I think your assessment of what constitutes an equal burden may have been influenced by our rather artificial American conception of "rights". In our society, property ownership is Constitutionally defined as a "right," and any abridgment of that "right" constitutes a "burden". Our society does not, however, Constitutionally recognize basic access to services and means of production as a "right," and therefore lack of access to these things is not considered a burden. Communist societies, in my opinion, only turn the problem on its head. They recognize a "right" to services and means of production, but not to private property ownership.

I personally prefer to view private property ownership and basic access to services and means of production as two Goods-- that is, two things that increase happiness and well-being. When viewed this way, the question is not about which inherent "rights" take precedence. Rather, it becomes a calculus about what management-strategy will result in the greatest possible happiness and well-being in the long-term. Since statistics show that life-satisfaction increases with income only up to a certain income bracket, it only makes sense to tax people who are above that bracket and redistribute some of the excess to people who need it. The "burden" for the overtaxed wealthy person, when viewed from this perspective, is much smaller than it would be for an overtaxed poor or middle class person.

It's important, of course, not to tax the rich so much that you remove the incentives for innovation, which would be very damaging to social health in the long term. Moderation in all things.

Peace,

-Chris

[_GlennThigpen]

When I see people who are advocates of the progressive, progressive tax system give everything they do not need to help the poor, I will believe that they really care about the poor.

I am willing to have my taxes raised until such is the case.

So why don't I donate it myself instead of voting to force others to help? Because I don't think what I contribute will be sufficient for my political goals (to ensure a more stable society with protection for children, not necessarily equality), and because I believe my first obligation is to my immediate family. If a secure net is in place for my family, then I will not need to save nearly as much and will gladly donate more.

I'm not asking for much of a progressive tax system. I'm asking for a more flat tax rate among those who do have more than enough--which includes me, but does not include the poor.

Oh, and don't forget Warren Buffett. He not only advocates for the poor, he actually puts his money where his mouth is. So no, people who advocate for the poor are not just jealous hypocrites.

I wasn't advocating giving up everything, just everything not needed. The tax and redistribute system will never achieve the goals of social mobility in the United States because the government bureaucracy is so inept and the policies so misguided that they only perpetuate the problem of dependency by the poor and actually depress motivation to improve.
For example, my wife was deserted by her former husband when she was six months pregnant and with five other children in the house to care for. She had no skills to market, so she applied for a government grant to go to school, and had passed all the tests that qualified her academically. She was turned down because she had too many children. With no one to turn to for advice and legal help, she was stuck on the government dole.
She tried to earn money by baking goods and selling them. Her first (and last) sale was a cake she sold for ten dollars. She dutifully reported the sale and was rewarded by having her food stamps slashed by twenty dollars and her FDIC slashed by twenty dollars the next month.
Those were probably not exactly legal actions. I do not know what the earning limits were back then before benefits were reduced. But, with no one to appeal to but the people who had "helped her, she "learned her lesson" and just did what she was told until she was able to get out from under their thumb.

There are many charities that use their donations to actually help people. Some of them are not very efficient, but there are many really good ones that use their donations wisely, much more so than the government.

Glenn

[_Kevin Graham]

Glenn the problem with your view is your perspective on government is based on the US government, which is essentially one that exists within a free-market capitalistic system. Much of the inefficiency is due to that fact. The regulatory officials are typically bribed by lobbyists to turn a blind eye when needed. So for instance, the stories about the Pentagon paying $400 for toilet seats and $200 for a hammer, are not exaggerations. They are intentionally overlooked because those in charge are bribed by lobbyists to hide funds. In turn, they are rewarded high paying positions in the private sector. This is why so many of the folks running the Treasury dept are former Bank CEOs, and others are future Bank CEOs.

Are there inefficiencies in our current government? Of course, but this is true to private enterprise just the same. The main difference is that the government isn't designed to place profit at the top of its list.

You're focusing on silly things while overlooking the larger picture. Which private charity would have paid for your wife's education? You're complaining about losing $20 in food stamps while ignoring the tens of thousands the government is willing to give just to help people get on their feet again and improve themselves.

But to be honest, your story doesn't make sense. I have had family members on food stamps and I know for a fact that people qualify for food stamps even if they are employed and they are only asked to report changes in income after a six month period. To make an extra $10 from selling a cake doesn't subtract $20 from your monthly food stamp benefits. It just doesn't. In fact, when you apply for food stamps you're essentially given a monthly amount for a six month period, based on the number of people in your household. At the end of the six month period, you are then required to report your emplyment status and all forms of income before they review your account to determine how much money you qualify for.

But again, which charity service is willing to supply a family of four with $400 in monthly food stamps? They don't exist. One has to pretty much belong to a social group, usually religious. But even then you're generally not going to see a consistent flow of benefits.

This notion that we don't need government because the private sector is charitable enough to see everyone is taken care of, is disproved by current reality. Thousands of people die in America simply because they cannot afford health insurance. Others die because they cannot get coverage due to preexisting conditions. Some people were born with bad luck that makes them ineligible for insurance. Is that fair?

[_Kevin Graham]

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built and maintained by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve System. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house that has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuable thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the Internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and watch ignorant Americans post on freerepublic.com and FOX News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because government can’t do anything right.

[_Dr. Shades]

For example, my wife was deserted by her former husband when she was six months pregnant and with five other children in the house to care for.

Wait, . . . you married a woman who had six kids??

How has that been working out for you?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's a bit ironic when you double post a post about intelligence.

It's always nice when people negate themselves through performative contradiction.

Not even close, my friend.

Pep pep!

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_GlennThigpen]

For example, my wife was deserted by her former husband when she was six months pregnant and with five other children in the house to care for.

Wait, . . . you married a woman who had six kids??

How has that been working out for you?

That was in nineteen plus years ago. I had four of my own children living with me and she still had three of her own. (My first wife had died three years earlier.) The first two years were rocky. Our children turned out to be the "Bratty Bunch" initially, but all of them have learned to respect, like, and in some cases actually love each other.
When I met her, my wife had survived ten years on her own. She is an amazing lady.

Glenn