T4TD (Leonardo's Basement)

Please link to this webpage, read, watch the videos and then discuss:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_18722311?nclick_check=1

Sing it Elton John

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44171605/ns/politics/

Okay, so let’s talk about the perfect little Circle of Life being discussed in that story.

So if you are like me and read the first paragraph… okay,who am I kidding, I just read the opening headline and I’m pissed. My overreaction would be HOLY CRAP, you mean we’ve been funding the Taliban all this time to fight against us?!?! What a perfect way to keep this angry cycle of war going! So Johnny Q. Public’s tax dollars are going to the terrorists so they can keep fighting us and we can keep fighting them and the goverment can keep dropping millions more of our tax dollars into war/defense. This is brilliant!

Then I started reading the rest of the story and discovered that it wasn’t really going straight to the Taliban to pay for rocket launchers and machine guns… “The bulk of the money was lost to profiteering, bribery and extortion by criminals and power brokers.”

Sounds like politics as usual to me! Another perfect circle! Our politics as usual here leads to our politics as usual over there until everyone’s hand is sufficiently greased up and ready for a proper reach around!!

T4TD (topic for the day) 8/16 part deux

Edgerton hits the pavement with a second topic:

I am starting a pool.  When does Bachmann bow out?

Check out her latest gaffe:

08/16 13:43 CDT Bachmann wishes Elvis happy birthday on death date

   

Bachmann wishes Elvis happy birthday on death date

   

By JIM DAVENPORT

Associated Press

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann

got her Elvis Presley dates all shook up during a campaign stop in South

Carolina.

The congresswoman from Minnesota played the Elvis tune "Promised Land" on

Tuesday at a restaurant in Spartanburg, and told the crowd of 300 that she

wanted to say happy birthday to the King of Rock and Roll.

But Aug. 16 is the anniversary of Elvis' death, in 1977, and someone in the

crowd shouted back, "He died today!"

Bachmann didn't respond and launched into her speech.

Bachmann has stumbled over cultural references before. In June, she kicked off

her presidential campaign in Waterloo, Iowa, calling it the home of American

actor John Wayne. The town was actually home for a time to serial killer John

Wayne Gacy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairmount fires first:

she is not a serious candidate and will not survive the primaries.  She does not speak to a wide-enough breath of republicans (even if they love what she says she is too extreme to be electable).  Besides, she cannot fundraise like the front-runners can.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgerton with a whitty wise crack:

Perhaps she can fundraise UNLIKE the others can… and I am talking the single bill variety...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hampshire having it his way:

Well, if that kind of fundraising is the case, then I think the media should take a great look at the views of the people in America and find out are they pro-Makin’ it Rain, or anti-Makin’ it Rain.  I think people would love to see Bachmann expose like that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairmount for the kill:

do not underestimate Romney's ability to shake his money-maker

T4TD (topic for the day) 8/16

Please discuss this comment by Mitt Romney (posted by Edgerton):

"The problem with rich people is that many of them are smart," Romney said in the key primary state of New Hampshire.

"High taxes on entrepreneurs and investors dissuade them from putting Americans to work," he said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairmount responds:

I think I can sum up my opinion as follows:  In general taxes are a shared burden with the revenue from taxes going to promote public goods and prevent public ills.  I think that two principles should be applied when designing a tax code horizontal equity and vertical equity.  Horizontal equity provides that similarly situated people should pay in the same amount (i.e. person A and B both make $50,000 therefore they should both pay the same amount of tax).  Vertically equity provides that differently situated people should pay different amounts (i.e. someone who makes $100,000 should pay more then someone who makes $50,000).  As you can see from my example, I conclude that people who have more should pay more. I reach this conclusion by applying the principle of diminishing marginal utility which teaches us that the more we have of something the less we value each additional item of it that we receive (roughly put).  One additional dollar is worth more to me than it is Bill Gates.

Applying the principles of horizontal and vertical equity lead me to conclude that the more one earns the more they should pay in for each additional dollar earned.  I think this leads to a conclusion that, at first blush, would strike people as fair with poor people paying less in taxes and rich people paying more.  Yes, there is a tradeoff with taxes.  Money put toward government spending is money that does not go towards private consumption, investment, or some other private end.

I guess there are two implicit arguments in any discussion about taxes.  One, what is a fair way of taxing and two what is a proper level.  What I mean by these two terms is as follows:  When I use the phrase a fair way of taxing I am asking what should people pay into the system relative to each other.  I have already identified what I consider fair (progressive taxation).  Things get complicated when we begin to talk about what I describe as the level of tax which I think of as a question of how much revenue should the government collect?  The question could be though of in terms of GDP.  Should the government collect 90% of the GDP?  2%?  One’s answer will depend on their faith in the ability of a government to address the problems we face.  I am someone who thinks that externalities exist (roughly put consequences and benefits not addressed by the market a classic example being national defense).  I think it is appropriate for people to form a government to address externalities.  I am particularly fond of constitutional democracies as a form of government which gives the people’s voice expression by allows for checks and balances (seeing as how the people rarely speak with one voice).  That said, I think it is appropriate for the government to raise revenue to address externalities and I think that the government should use progressive taxation to raise this revenue.

I can be sympathetic to Romney’s point.  Taxing people’s money takes it away from private uses.  But if there are public uses of money and we are going to tax people to raise money then in my mind progressive taxation is a fair way of doing so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edgerton responds:

That is a well thought out taxation argument, but totally off the point, so I give you a 2/10 on this pop quiz.

I was wanting you to comment on the Ayn Rand bogus crap about rich people being smarter than poor people. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fairmount re-engages:

Rich people are not inherently better then others and wealth is not a virtue in and of itself (in my opinion).  People become rich through many means.  They can inherit it, they get lucky (i.e. the lottery), or they work hard.  Yes, there are smart and hard working rich people and when they succeed we can all win.  But this does not mean that being rich is a virtue and that we should do everything in our power to keep the rich, rich and enhance their wealth.  I would be more interested in creating an environment that encourages success (including success in endeavors beyond wealth accumulation such as curing a crippling illness). 

I feel there is no guarantee for success but there are things one can do to increase their odds of success.  Hard work, determination, and luck all play a role in success.  And I think society can foster the conditions that lead to more people succeeding.  Some people think that fostering success is done by cutting taxes (although this seems to be their solution for every issue).  I think factors like good infrastructure; a healthy, educated workforce, and a sound legal system (among other factors) help foster success. 

I am embarrassed for missing the question the first time around

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hampshire jumps in:

That’s okay, you can’t help it for being smart and producing very well thought out, educated points to a very important debate.  I appreciate your viewpoints and really wish there were people like you actually in some kind of elected office where you could service the public.  As such, would you like to service me later tonight?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairmount gets last jab:

now that's an electoral pole we can all get behind

We are up and running my friends...

Welcome to the classy, but class-less, conglomerate of Fairmount, Edgerton and Hampshire.