President Bush - about bush

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-15 22:08:18

Josh wrote:

Proudhon's argument was that all the government existed for was to maintain roads, and so on, and uphold the security of a nation. And that it ought not cost any more for a rich person to use a road or be protected by a military than anyone else (common #### sense, really). What Prouhon doesn't realize is that the welfare of those at the bottom must be protected (actually, he does realize this, he just doesn't see why the state has any reason to do it, he thinks the individuals themselves ought to- anyway, the state has to protect the welfare of the individuals at the bottom our current condition, so we won't argue that), due to how fragile centralized systems are.

So what does that prove either way about a flat tax or a percentage tax? I think I'm missing something (sorry).

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-16 00:38:13

So what does that prove either way about a flat tax or a percentage tax? I think I'm missing something (sorry).

Hmm... no, what I said was fairly confusing I would say. I make wacky posts often. In fact, this one will probably be one of them.

There are two basic ways to define how you tax people.

You tax them all equally, and be done with it. And you tax them all equally, and be done with it.

In the former, you tax them proportionate to how much money everyone makes. It's an equal tax, because everyone pays into the system equally, e.g., 20% for everyone.

In the later, you tax them proportionate to their potential capital. It's an equal tax, because each person pays into the system equally, e.g., the rate increases as your ablity to purchase increases.

Neither tax is ?immoral? because they are different approaches (one being better than the other, arguably). The first is infinitely easier to ?sell? because all it takes is, ?Equal taxation for all!? while the other is a complicated brouhaha of rhetoric where slogans like, ?We don't cater to the richest one percent!? don't have much of an effect.

Deep down, I've always wanted to see these tax plans pass, once and for freaking all. Of course, it could well cause one #### of a great depression (the Great Depression was caused by low tax, many speculate), but at least then we'd have evidence showing that it would work or not.

And the point of my post about Proudhon, is that the security of a State goes a lot further than simply, well, fixing roads and paying for a military. And that was his basis for a flat tax, that that was the sole function of the State.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-16 00:52:19

Here's the relevant tidbit from his book:

To meet the expenses of government, which has armies to support, tasks to perform, and officers to pay, taxes are needed. Let all contribute to these expenses: nothing more just. But why should the rich pay more than the poor? That is just, they say, because they possess more. I confess that such justice is beyond my comprehension.

Why are taxes paid? To protect all in the exercise of their natural rights--liberty, equality, security, and property; to maintain order in the State; to furnish the public with useful and pleasant conveniences.

Now, does it cost more to defend the rich man's life and liberty than the poor man's? Who, in time of invasion, famine, or plague, causes more trouble,--the large proprietor who escapes the evil without the assistance of the State, or the laborer who sits in his cottage unprotected from danger?

Is public order endangered more by the worthy citizen, or by the artisan and journeyman? Why, the police have more to fear from a few hundred laborers, out of work, than from two hundred thousand electors!

Does the man of large income appreciate more keenly than the poor man national festivities, clean streets, and beautiful monuments?

Why, he prefers his country-seat to all the popular pleasures; and when he wants to enjoy himself, he does not wait for the greased pole!

One of two things is true: either the proportional tax affords greater security to the larger tax-payers*, or else it is a wrong.

Because, if property is a natural right, as the Declaration of '93 declares, all that belongs to me by virtue of this right is as sacred as my person; it is my blood, my life, myself: whoever touches it offends the apple of my eye. My income of one hundred thousand francs is as inviolable as the grisette's daily wage of seventy-five centimes; her attic is no more sacred than my suite of apartments. The tax is not levied in proportion to strength, size, or skill: no more should it be levied in proportion to property.

If, then, the State takes more from me, let it give me more in return, or cease to talk of equality of rights; for otherwise, society is established, not to defend property, but to destroy it. The State, through the proportional tax, becomes the chief of robbers; the State sets the example of systematic pillage: the State should be brought to the bar of justice at the head of those hideous brigands, that execrable mob which it now kills from motives of professional jealousy.

I left that last paragraph, just because it's funny, and well, he talks like that a lot in his book!

* Here he shows that the proportional tax does make sense if it's done to insure the security of the rich.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-19 10:50:14

Not to get off topic but...

How about those chemical warheads the Iraqis got caught with? ??? :;):

soph · 2003-01-19 11:29:45

they are something, but they had no chemicals, and they were empty :

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-19 17:44:17

And old and dirty. Hehehe

I bet I could make some like that out of old junkyard pipes... seriously.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 13:08:59

Whew. Finals week is over. I'm home sick today, so I can finally get some posts in.

The fact still remains that Iraq got caught red-handed with undeclared weapons. I've heard they've found even more (different weapons... VX stores or something like that).

Can't wait for the President's SotU address tonight.

soph · 2003-01-28 13:33:28

The problem is a few empty warheads are not justification to go to war. and all ive seen from bush is that he wants to go to war.

its almost like the boy that cried wolf. even if he is right in the end, his posturing up to this point has cooled off the credibility of his message.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 13:39:33

It doesn't matter if Iraq has build 16 or 16,000 chemical warheads. The fact of the matter is, they were required by the UN to disarm, and they didn't. It's like in court when you're trying to prove pergery. If you catch the person in a lie, you can conjecture that their other statements might have been false as well.

Saddam said time and time again before all this that Iraq had completely disarmed and disclosed all of the weapons. Obviously they haven't, and their word is worthless now. I think that is an excellent ground to go to war on.

soph · 2003-01-28 13:52:23

Dude, we're talking about some empty shells. This isn't massive armament. I've worked on some more potent materials. A pellet gun can do more damage than empty shells.

Perjury may be a conservative's excuse for war, or impeachment, but to use it as such is ridiculous. War is not something that should be treated so lightly. We are going to kill people over a few empty shells? Please, that's terrible. If we found a real weapon, maybe. But I don't want Americans or Iraqis dying over some empty shells, especially considering our diplomatic options of Hussein's removal.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 13:56:39

Running over some chemical shells in the desert with a bulldozer isn't exactly a professional disarming job. Not to mention that if they truly had disarmed them prior to inspections, they would have made every effort possible to show it in the declaration. Wouldn't you make extra sure the US saw that gesture if you were the Iraqis? Burying it in a shallow hole looks more like a quick way to get rid of it under the gun to me.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-28 23:02:26

I love this stuff at Bill O'Reilly. And people say the guy is objective. Just look at one of his surveys: http://www.billoreilly.com/site....catID=0

Do you think that saying George Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam makes you un-American?

Yes - Disrespecting the President is un-American. 79%
No - Ignoring the right to freedom of speech is un-American. 21%
Total Votes: 15978

If his audience really believes that... man... sounds like Nazi propaganda.

soph · 2003-01-29 05:34:03

um bill o'reilly is a hell of a lot more objective than the guardian. he was making a point. you would have to actually watch his show to know about his ojectivity, which i actually have done.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-29 06:04:42

Oh, I have. The point was more or less to criticize his viewers, or at least, the people who vote on his polls. If I were him, I would be ashamed people voted the way they did. I didn't see his reaction to it, though.

soph · 2003-01-29 09:19:06

o'reilly actually took on bush big time. people complained that we should leave him alone in this time of strife. i think he was making a point as to the blind following of the president in times of war.

we need to improve our education so that we can think for ourselves, not let politicians think for us.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-29 21:55:06

Good on him, then. I would have actually expected him to take that position.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-04 23:44:02

Fleischer: Bush Didn't Visit NASA as Gov.

SPACE CENTER, Houston - It turns out, President Bush apparently never visited here when he was governor of Texas.

So what, you say?

The did-he-or-didn't-he contretemps has been rattling around for two days.

The issue arose Monday when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer dismissed suggestions Bush was uninterested in the NASA program before the Columbia crash.

Fleischer acknowledged Bush has never seen a NASA launch or landing, saying that was in part because there are so many other beautiful things to see in the country.

But the spokesman rejected a report that Bush had never been to the space center, telling reporters Bush visited in 1995 or 1996, when he was governor.

"To the president's recollection, he thinks he has been there," his spokesman said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....enter_3

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 20:51:45

Hee Hee Hee... as Rush Limbaugh's book title says, See I Told You So

HOW ABOUT THAT SMOKING GUN?

Oh man! They had everything! The Republican Guard talking about moving weapons... an Iraqi defect exposed the mobile vehicles used as biological weapons labs... even satellite pictures of missile platforms on the ground and loaded onto a truck. Oh yeah! And the decontamination vehicle spraying down a chemical bunker, and another defect to our side exposing Saddam's plans to disperse mobile missile units into western Iraq!

I'm ready for this war thing now. How about you guys?

-- Cal "I was right all along" Tech2010

soph · 2003-02-05 21:09:47

No, I believe you said the iraq invasion threat was a bluff.

And Rush Limbaugh is a bafoon.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 21:24:20

I thought for a while the Iraq invasion would be a way to twist Saddam's arm into complying with UN resolutions and cooperating with inspectors, but after all of the mobilization in the past 2 months I've changed my mind.

And I'm sure you're on Tom Daschle's side when you say that Rush Limbaugh is pure evil and responsible for all of the bad things in our country (I think I should send Daschle a big can of "Limbaugh Repellant" )

I wish that the UN presentation was a football, 'cause I'd run it into the endzone and spike it down through the goalpost and do the "dirty bird" for a few seconds.

soph · 2003-02-05 21:26:23

So, you really are just letting your ego get the better of you, when you just showed that you were wrong to begin with?

No, I dont believe he is pure evil, but I laugh at how he blames Clinton for our troubles, and ignores how great of a president clinton was.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 21:32:51

No, soph. I'm not letting you slip out of this one that easily. I've had to take grief from everyone on this board for the past 3 months about this issue.

Everybody said that Saddam has disarmed, and that we were just trying to fight an oil war. Who said that the administration had evidence that we didn't know about that Iraq had not disarmed? Yeah, I called that one.

soph · 2003-02-05 21:37:11

No, I actually said I thought he had weapons. You might want to look back to the beginning.

What I said is that until we actually find something more than empty shells, we dont have the impetus to go to war.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 21:39:11

And we did. We found a lot more. I think we have all the evidence we need to go to war.

Sorry if this is all aimed at you. I mostly want to give the blunt end of this to Josh and Alt.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 08:59:44

Caltech, if Powell was so convincing, why is it that the Security Council stood their ground? You know what I find laughable? That the whole thing was clearly set up for the American people to watch. All the National Stations had Powell, and only Powell on TV. FOX News cut away every time dissentors (China, France, etc) spoke, and had their little journalistic dialoug, praising Powell's ablity to convince people (no one was convinced).

Powell had absolutely no effect on the international community.

The inspections will continue.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#476 2003-01-15 22:08:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#477 2003-01-16 00:38:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#478 2003-01-16 00:52:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#479 2003-01-19 10:50:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#480 2003-01-19 11:29:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#481 2003-01-19 17:44:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#482 2003-01-28 13:08:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#483 2003-01-28 13:33:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#484 2003-01-28 13:39:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#485 2003-01-28 13:52:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#486 2003-01-28 13:56:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#487 2003-01-28 23:02:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#488 2003-01-29 05:34:03

Re: President Bush - about bush

#489 2003-01-29 06:04:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#490 2003-01-29 09:19:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#491 2003-01-29 21:55:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#492 2003-02-04 23:44:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#493 2003-02-05 20:51:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#494 2003-02-05 21:09:47

Re: President Bush - about bush

#495 2003-02-05 21:24:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#496 2003-02-05 21:26:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#497 2003-02-05 21:32:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#498 2003-02-05 21:37:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#499 2003-02-05 21:39:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#500 2003-02-06 08:59:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer