Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine The United States Has a New President -Elect. . .

Taxes are part of the system. No taxes, then lower paycheck. It's really NOT all OUR money on that payslip, taxes are inculcated.

There are social responsibilities unless old Sid wants to build his own roads, buy his own police force to keep the destitute off his doors and part of being American is still some sense of opportunity equilization isn't it? Is it a kid's fault if they're born into a poor family?

(heh, the pubs and dems have joe the plumber, we have sid viscious).


Peace is based upon stability. I don't like the leaning left extortionists any more than you but if you want the epitome of inefficient income redistribution to support your compassionate conservatism then I give you the United Way and the local mega church headed by the 6 figure pastor with the business degree or the diocese's local "boss," uh, bishop, closing the churches in the poor rural and urban areas to build new ones within the upper income suburban new-town model shopping mall. What about suburban people being able to afford to drive to poor areas for church do these classists not understand anyhow?

I'll put "my" money into an organization I have somewhat more control of, an elected government.

You want peace or you want no taxes?

And that is another mistake that people make about conservatives...that we are against all taxes.

We aren't. We all know about roads and schools, we understand that there are some things you need to pay taxes for, like defense, a national guard for emergencies like natural disasters, etc... we aren't stupid like the media likes to portray us.

But, at the same time, i have enough to do to take care of my family and friends. And if there is leftover, i help others where i can. I find helping people find jobs to pay their own way much better than giving them a handout. Jobs give people pride and a sense of accomplishment. A handout leaves them resentful at someone or group, it robs them of their motivation to better when they have to do nothing to survive. People can get used to living with nothing and thinking there is nothing they can do to improve their lot in life.

Some taxes are necessary, but this country wasn't founded on having one segment support another from cradle to grave. This country was founded on opportunity and equal rights. No man is greater under the law than another (not reality i know, but it was the stated goal). Go back and read your Ray Bradbury, your James Joyce.

This country was founded by people that were oppressed and looking for better opportunities. It did not say that everyone had to be exactly equal, and if one person was smarter or more athletic, they had to be handicapped to make them equal to everyone else, it said they were equal under the law.

Our government is supposed to be for the people, by the people. All the people, not just the poor, not just the rich, not just the white, not just the black, the religious, the non-religious...everyone is supposed to have a chance. It is left up to them what they MAKE of it. They have to put in the effort themselves, not have the government hand them a check every month, or take care of their health.

Think about this, say everyone is given health care by the government. Say Tom Boog decides to live a healthy life, and Sam Doog decides to ignore his health, to eat bad foods, to take dangerous risks. Sam is going to cost more. In effect, he is stealing from others. What is to say that in giving up the right to control his own life for health care, the government decides to pass laws and brand him a criminal for not taking appropriate actions?

They cant do that you say? I'm making ridiculas arguements, you say? Well, Social Security was supposed to be untouchable, and not taxed. We were "promised" that way back.

And yet, it is now taxed. And it is certainly touchable. Government rules by the least common denominator. Deal with a government agency and you play by their rules, often made by them, as congress so orders. Look at the IRS. And congress is scared to death to touch the IRS. Still think that cant happen?

Yes, i do not trust the government. They have not proven themselves trustworthy because they are run by human beings that want to get the most while doing the least.

I think this is going to be the last post for me here on this thread. Blood pressure is gettin' a might high, lol. They might decide i am not livin' right and come and take me to jail.

We already have your address. We just needed a bit more evidence. You were a penny short on your taxes last year. Please don't make a scene, your family can visit.

I'm sorry you feel the discussion is getting out of hand, Rick. I do appreciate your views and insights.

An interesting article on voting is David Brooks' "The Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest" , which may explain why this election turned out the way it did.

There is another article, "Class In America - 2003" by Gregory Mantsios, that is worth checking out, although I do not believe it's available online.

We're ok. Things stay amazingly civil around here more than 99% of the time.

It's evident that we all have strong feelings about last week's election and it's also evident that we'll come together to get things done. Some will do it with reservations (which is good - it reminds us to stay grounded) and others will jump in enthusiastically (which is also good - it inspires us to look beyond preconceived limits).

Whatever else happens the world will turn, the sun will rise in the east and we'll all be a little older tomorrow.

..and VERY importantly (if we're lucky) Lo3W will finish up before next summer and in the meantime we can all hope for Adventure to become the new Legion book.

I'm sorry, too, that RS1 has gotten too overheated, but I can certainly sympathize! My wife won't even watch most political chat shows with me anymore because I spend most of my time yelling back at the TeeVee.

I also want to echo how much I appreciate and learn from RS1's eloquent and proud elucidation of his views. I don't always share them, but I always gain something from them.

The fundamental tension in any society, but especially the American one, is the tension between self support and mutual support. And RS1 annunciates convincingly the self support view. I would counter simply by saying that the Constitution of the United States, in it's justly famous preamble, makes a pretty strong statement in favor of the value of mutual support as an organizing principle of government: ...in order to provide a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity..."

The framers of the Constitution clearly saw the need to balance "the blessings of liberty" and "the general welfare," hence the inclusion of the Bill of Rights amendments even before the Constitution was ratified by the States. PE Obama has advanced an argument, which I tend to share, that certain kinds of "mutual support" programs, like health insurance and retirement security, actually enable creativity and entrepreneurism because individuals have enough security to strike out in a new direction, without fearing the loss of health insurance or retirement savings. And again, I think PE Obama, coming where he comes from, greatly appreciates the balance between self support and mutual support. Does every Dem in the Congress? Most certainly not. That's why the President is relevant and important.

The one thing I would urge RS1 to consider is this: why necessarily limit your passion, devotion and labor to caring only for those related to you by blood or long established friendship? Is that enough to form a functioning society that you and we benefit from? That question is NOT meant to justify some outrageous or prejudicial seizure of your individual prosperity. As you note wisely, most people, even conservatives, are not opposed to taxes.

I think the problem we've had in this country since about 1968 is the notion that our hard-earned tax payments go to the "undeserving other." That "undeserving other" is best personified by that Reagan stereotype of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen. So, the undeserving other, the welfare queen, was as much a vehicle for racial bigotry as it was a valid critique of social policy.

But, as these election results show, we've come a long way from 1968 or 1980. We've significantly changed welfare policy in this country, thanks to both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, with Daniel Patrick Moynihan serving as the wise elder counselor to both. And RS1 is absolutely right that a job is way more important than a paycheck. It's a vehicle for emotional and interpersonal growth, a massive source of pride and self-worth. We also learned shortly before the election that "Joe the Plumber" (really Sam J. Wurzelbacher the unlicensed tradesman), that symbol of angry white male distrust of government, had been on welfare twice during his life. I point that out not to denigrate him, merely to highlight that having a social safety net doesn't turn every beneficiary of it into a lifelong dole-denizen. My wife's aunt was widowed at age 35 with 5 kids, the youngest less than a year old. Social security survivor's benefits enabled her to stay in her house and raise her family with the minimum disruption possible from losing your husband, father and primary earner.

I think with this election we close the book on the worst of the "undeserving other" critique, sparked by Johnson's rapid expansion of government assistance programs and pilloried by Reagan's "welfare queen" stereotype. I don't know what the new era will be, but my guess is that it will be a more balanced recognition of our "general welfare," and I know that the intelligence and skepticism of folks like Rick will be essential to making the new day better than the last.

Ah, Reagan, the liberal's favorite fire hydrant when they run out of good things to say (usually pretty quickly).

and the "Welfair Queen" is a lot older than you give her credit for, though the publically funded facelifts do tend to give her new life. Don't know about your personal issues but around here it's not a racial issue. The smart ones use fake attempts at furthering education, various idiots dumb enough to move in with them and crank a kid to further her move into the real estate market. The not so savie ones just move on to older guys and whatever means they can find to supplement their government supplied income.

There's a serious inequity in handing out free dollars to females versus males. If giving cash to raise kids is to be our national motto, then I say give it to the fathers.

Reagan's persistent was costly but without it, we'd still be waiting for Russia with all their oil and minerals to bankrupt. We would have lost. Without Reagan we would not have had the release of Defense technology that created a revolution that turned hundreds or thousands if not millions of BLUE COLLAR middle income families into capital investors and millionaires. Now admittedly, I'm a bit peaved at a system that now seeks to bail them out for not having enough sense to recognize a market based upon gambling, not capital, and getting out or for not realizing a $200,000 loan for a $100,000 house was a bad idea but that's a dem evil as much a pub one.

Listed amongst those NWTimes articles HWW linked is one about those poor private schools so struggling under their billion dollar endowments to keep the price of their services down. One public school was mentioned, my evening employer. U of Toledo has offered FREE education to any grad with decent grades from any of Ohio's urban centers. While Ohio State grabs all the state moneys, even with their major endowments, I'm proud of the chance my university is taking on opportunity for equity, an equity that actually requires the reciprient to WORK.

That my folks is called developmental parity.

A socialists idea and a damn good one. Basically it means, we can't blame kids for being born and we can't blame kids for whom they are born to or where they are born.

Once they are adults though, time to stop holding their hands. That's the major reason these kids are in the fix they're in, parents who have had a government paying them off to stay silently out of the way without having to EARN that government money.

Without Reagan, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Saddan Hussein, Manuel Noriega and plenty of other villans would never have been armed to the teeth by our tax dollars, too.

Maybe the reason Reagan gets brought up is because he is the clear roadsign for our nation's wrong turn.

MaI'm not going to bother to debate you assumption-buy-assumption, BB. Assuming status quos without a shred of evidence does not make a very strong argument.

Huh? Then why post other than to take a cheap shot? Feel free to educate me. I'm not ashamed of my ignorance. I'd be ashamed if I did not put myself in place to "lesson" it.

The US and western empires have been arming dictators in the battle against some "evil empire" or another LONG before Reagan came around. I believe it was another pub that we can thank for the unleasing of the Shah of Iran (Eisenhower). Kennedy and Johnson sure took their turns.

I remember the late 70's early 80's well and was working at the NSA at the time. I don't think people realize how close we were to collapsing. The combination of loss of faith, unemployment and inflation make today's efforts pale.

Whether it was by making a common enemy or his severe distaste for communism, Reagan found a rallying cry. Even most dems of the time have recognized that.

Reagan's approach was costly agreed but unlike the rampant socialism of the 60-80's dems, it was a cost with a potential social profit.

These problems you mention with creation of dictators have been well documented as a result not of the arming (well, not totally) but of our not following through after the "win," (Marshall Plan) whether that be in Central and South America, Afganistan or Southern Lebanon. Turns out FREE poor people with no hope are more dangerous the oppressed poor people with no hope.

Something else else from my Peace Corps days sticks with me; you cannot "give" without expecting to create a begger for life.

The better plan is to create a system which encourages those down on their luck to continue to earn. We've been very slow to learn on that. We've not done it on our own soil nor with those we "liberated."

That's a two party fail.

You know, we've drifted WAAAAAYYYY off topic.

Heh, yeah, it took exactly three posts before we did that. Something else else to do with presidents' names ending in "e" I think the thread was about.

As the topic-starter, I don't mind the topic drift. I'm learning a lot from BB, doublechinner, YK, and everyone else!

Who knew presidents' names could be such a fun topic!

Slightly more on topic . . .

I, too, take Rick's views to heart, but I voted for Obama the man, not the Democrats as a party. (Yes, I know that probably also sounds incredibly naive . . .)

Look, no presidential candidate is ever perfect, and some real questions have been raised about Obama (chiefly concerning his lack of foreign policy experience). Yet the only way I feel truly comfortable voting for anyone is by listening to them speak and gauging their views in a more general sense, rather than on what they promise to do about specific issues (which is little more than a sales pitch).

McCain put me off with his flag-waving, maverick-spouting, emotional appeals and slippery slope attacks. The guy is genuine hero, no question about it, and he has first-hand experience with war, whereas Obama does not. But the president is more than commander in chief. He (or, someday, she) doesn't deal with just military matters. He must also serve as diplomat to the rest of the world. McCain seemed content to keep the walls in place where there are walls between the U.S. and the rest of the world. He spoke of preconditions for meetings and timelines for withdrawal from Iraq as if these things were incredibily dangerous concepts to even talk about. (Maybe they are, but somebody should at least consider them.) He presented a doom-and-gloom picture should Obama be elected, but he did not give me many positive reasons to think things would be better under his administration.

Obama, by contrast, came over as sensible, positive, willing to consider all sides to an issue, and capable of modifying his position when necessary (which to some, I know, looks like waffling). He exhibited great self control and, during the debates at least, appealed more to my logic than my emotions. In short, he came off as presidential in every aspect of the word, not just in the military sense.

That said, McCain probably would have made a great president, too. We were blessed this time to have two truly outstanding men running for the top spot. On one news program last summer, a German correspondent said that in Europe they viewed our dilemma as a "Luxisproblem"--a luxury problem--"meaning, we would like to have your problem." McCain's very gracious concession speech showed his character: It was what all of us--Democrats, Republicans, and others--needed to hear.

At the end of the day, I voted for the promise of change that Obama gave. His unique background gives him a different perspective on our problems and on the U.S.'s relationship with the rest of the world--and I think such a perspective is sorely needed.

One last response to a misconception and i will let it go.

Double said this:

"The one thing I would urge RS1 to consider is this: why necessarily limit your passion, devotion and labor to caring only for those related to you by blood or long established friendship? Is that enough to form a functioning society that you and we benefit from? "

My wife collects stuffed toys to send to the troops in Iraq to give out to the children there. I have contributed what little i had on me at the time to the Lighthouse charity. My folks have given what little they had to give at times to an orphanage down the road. I've participated in fundraisers for disaster relief, helped collect foodstuffs for families that lost homes to fires, sent water and whatever else i could to families that have lost homes to floods.

Without the government DEMANDING it, Americans are the single greatest aid givers in the world, many of them the christians so reviled by the media. I don't claim to be christian. I do believe in god, but i have problems with organized religions that eventually wind up being more about worshiping made up rules that have no sociatal benefit rather than trying to do what is best for the race of man.

But, yes, first and foremost, charity begins at home. And by charity i mean giving a helping hand, not a handout. And if everyone did that, then there would be no one left to need continued handouts from the government, because everyone is known by at least one person. But, the world isn't built that way.

The world does need the dreamers and the hopers, but it also needs the realists to ground them, and more importantly, to be the foundation on which the dreamers and hopers can build.

I have no problem with the dreamers, what i hate and dispise are the confidence artists, left and right, that use that to their own personal advantages.

On that we can agree.

See? Sometimes we do agree. This really is the greatest site on the internet(s).

HWW worded my feelings about Obama pretty well. I'm more postitive about McCain's campaign approach at least on the ads he endorsed.

The slew of last minute ads directed against associates of Obama left me cold. I never was impressed that those associations defined his make-up. Some comments by the wife though left me thinking twice. If not for McCain's coice for VP, I might have still been on the fence at voting time. Nice lady I'm sure but not someone I was comfortable that close to becoming Pres.

Both are organized and can excite followers. Neither impressed me as "weak" as have the last two Presidents.

I was very happy with our top choices this campaign and three out of four of our running mates.

However, if a Clinton, any Clinton makes cabinet, I may ask to change my vote.

I would prefer Senator Clinton remain Senator Clinton, unless she can become the second President Clinton in 2016--or maybe Justice Clinton? [that would REALLY give Clinton-haters hissy fits--it's for life!]

As for hope, I'll reserve mine for the next world. This one is a lost cause--even if humanity manages to get off this world and out of this solar system in self-supporting colonies, to escape the eventual death of the Sun, and hence the Earth, all the other stars will burn out sooner or later and the Universe will die.

Hence, all human activity--good, evil, neutral, mixed--is ultimately futile, because it can't get you the only thing that really matters: eternal survival of individual consciousness, if such a thing exists.

I'm 45, and I feel twice that age.

No more Clintons and Bushes! No more damn nobility!

The proponderence of Clintonites on Obama's team, particularly in foreign policy, is pretty much confirming my worst fears about him. I'm thoroughly expecting four to eight more years of "humanitarian war" bs.