Instead of an "either/or" choice between the energy policy proposals of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. A hybridization of both plans (with a healthy portion of the Pickens Plan on the side) is the solution to our country's reliance on foreign oil.
We need: limited off-shore drilling with environmentally protective oversight; we also need a windfall tax for oil companies and earmark the revenue from this tax to alternative energy development (wind, solar AND nuclear); we need to commence the building of wind and solar energy farms in the plains and southwest; we need to mandate a two-way power grid allowing individual homes and businesses to implement wind and solar technologies to produce their own energy and potentially sell excess energy back to the grid.
The energy crisis this country has finally decided to acknowledge is far too important to allow the stagnant two-party political process to play with. This issue demands and deserves the active participation of all people. The time has come for the people to speak. Let your representatives know your mind on this issue.
Posts
32 comments:
"windfall tax for oil companies"
According to my last statement Conoco/Phillips made less then 8 cents a gallon, is this the windfall your referring to ??
The federal government averages 24 cents and the states are all over 20 cents a gallon with some receiving upwards of 50 cents a gallon. Just who is making the money from the oil companies ??
The $11.5 BILLION Exxon/Mobil profit statement for one quarter is what I'm talking about Tom. If it breaks down to 8 cents a gallon, so be it. That's a lot of gallons. Conoco/Phillips was third or fourth on the list, too.
Gas prices are going to stabilize around what we're experiencing now. Maybe a little lower or higher. Basically, they are ending up where they should have been climbing to for a very long time, now.
2 cents a gallong would provide a great foundation for establishing alternatives.
I know you don't agree.
Maybe you'd like to do away with milk for kids at school being subsidized.
What I know is it is not unheard of to be fiscally conservative and promote taxes on businesses with high profit margins for the benefit of country as a whole.
I'm not the one who labeled this a "crisis" or "emergency". I do know that just drilling offshore or taxing alone either one are going to get the job done.
I'm at least trying to think of valid solutions to the problem, even though nobody of consequence is ever going to listen to me.
I'm not sitting back and examining my portfolio profit analyses. I believe there is a crisis and I further believe it will take crossing political boundaries and some serious giving and a lot less taking for our reliance on imported oil to seriously impacted.
And, by the way, if you want to go back on my blog, I've been saying it longer than Paris Hilton.
after giving this much thought and how many if not most people don't have a concept of how to run a successful business, except for those people doing it.
I think we should allow government to mandate an acceptable rate of return on one's invested dollar, cap at a percentage for all profits for every company based in the U.S. and those doing business in the U.S. so as not to allow over profiteering at the expense of those who haven't had the desire or opportunity to start and grow their own business. This should be done as a flat rate across the board so NO industry gains any favors over another type of industry.
If the profits generated exceed the amount allowable by government, those companies are to immediately remit a check to the federal government in said amount of overage.
Who are you and what have you done with my friend Tom?
Hehe.
Seriously, Tom. I'm just trying to think of ways to get the alternatives to fossil fuels seriously pursued on the national policy level.
I'm not against people making money. I know it may seem that way because I'm proposing a windfall tax on big oil companies. The tax I'm proposing would be as much for motivating the pursuit of alternative energy implimentation as anything else.
We both know this situation was somewhat exacerbated by Wall Street commodities speculators who were trading oil shares like crazy for the last several months.
The strengthening of the dollar has balanced out the greed, for the time being, but I don't think we're gonna go back to less than $3 a gallon.
Perhaps I see that my fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of my happiness is being over regulated so like a good Borg I'll just comply
You know, Tom, I see it this way. We both would probably be satisfied with the same outcome, but we're approaching it from different ends of the dilectic. I think you see the common person and small businessman as being "over-regulated" while I see the big corporations and top ten percent of the income earners as "under-regulated".
Then again, I understand you are a proponent of one tax rate for everyone, and I just don't subscribe to that idea until we even things out a bit. I don't want redistribution of wealth. I just want all the same basic services for everyone.
If everyone gets the same tax rate, then everyone gets the same quality of health care. I think that's fair and right for the greatest country on the planet, don't you?
Do you think there aren't rich people in Sweeden, Norway and Finland? There are. They all pay the same tax rate, though. The rich don't get tax breaks just because they're rich. They live a better lifestyle, to be sure, but they pay the same tax rate.
If there were one tax rate the rich would still pay more in taxes just like they do now.
I'm a firm believer in an income tax only nothing more nothing less with NO deductions for anything. When the rich person buys a yacht he pays more tax then 5 poor families combined.
So, do you believe being poor is first and foremost the product of an individual's motivation level?
Are there any mitigating socio-economic-political factors which can have a direct effect on a person's earning power? (Not potential...actual earning power)
We are probably all familiar with the heart-tugging and inspirational tales of people overcoming incredible hardship to become successful entrepreneurs, etc. Question is this: why is it inspirational? Why is it heart-tugging when these individuals overcome such adversity?
My contention is most people DO realize how difficult and against the odds it is to accomplish these feats of economic ascension.
The truth is this: most people remain in the socio-economic status they are born into in this country. Despite efforts to climb out of poverty and earn a better living to support their families or themselves individually, most poor and middle-class people never transcend the economic status of their parents.
The idea of poor people remaining poor because they are somehow content with their lot in life and lack the ambition to become something more and improve their status is preposterous and is diametrically opposed to human nature. It is human nature to want more. It is NOT human nature to simply walk through life without any hopes, dreams or ambitions.
Imposing the same percentage of tax on all earners, despite their current earning power is a penalty to the poor and a boon to the rich. Of course rich people pay MORE money in taxes because they have more.
I guess if people are happy with a society embedded in the status quo and having little to no possibility of socio-economic mobility, then we should just maintain the current system, or even go to a single rate of tax for all people.
I personally believe this country is better than to condemn the poor to being poor for eternity. Social programs are the means by which government may honestly make the ATTEMPT to assure the lower economic classes have opportunities to better themselves, enrich their lives and increase their earning power and political viability in our society.
I'm not JUST talking about welfare and unemployment benefits, either. I'm talking about reeducation programs, vocational programs, economic stimulus incentives, universal and affordable healthcare (this does NOT mean socialized medicine, but if it's one or the other, I'll take nationalized medicine for everyone over privatized medicine for only those who can afford it).
I believe in subsidized daycare for families and single parents who need to go out and earn a living and get off of welfare and unemployment.
I'm tired of the attitude condoning the status quo and people who believe "poor people are poor because they have no ambition". Most poor people are poor because they are born that way and have been given little opportunity or training to become more economically viable.
If we're going to have a society with such great economic disparity, then I say let the rich pay a higher tax rate so the poor can get some extra relief from the government to make their lives a little more comfortable. I believe it is right to make people with low income exempt from income taxes. I further believe the federal government should pay into social security for those people beneath the poverty level. How can the government do this? By raising the tax rate of the top ten percent.
I don't believe we should all be equal economically. I just don't believe there should be such a high rate of destitutely poor people in this country. I don't believe we should have starving children in this country for any reason; whether it be drug-addicted parents or parents who can't find work. Children should not go hungry in this country, but they do.
Basically, if you can assure me the agenda of reducing government and taxes for the sake of everybody taking home a little more cash every paycheck is going to provide the means for ALL people to meet the basic needs of themselves and their families, I'll sign on to the one tax for everybody idea. I just don't think the socio-economic playing field is level enough for that idea to work, yet. I hope we achieve the type of society able to institute such a plan for taxation, but we're not there yet and I'm not signing off on it for the sake of bringing home a few extra dollars a paycheck.
I believe people are content to do just enough to get by as I see these types everyday in my line of business. Most aren't going to step outside of their "comfort zone" to achieve success(how ever that is defined).
I grew up in abstract poverty through the foster system, many times eating potato soup because that is all the food that was in the house. I don't come at my opinions lightly, I have lived through much of what I speak out about. The vast majority of people are content as long as they have $5 in their pocket and a six pack in the fridge, these type of individuals no matter how government tries to level the playing field will still continue to struggle to get by.
Wanting to get ahead is a mindset and generally it is developed by those we call our friends, people we associate with and what work we put into trying to better ourselves. Most people have more then there parents in terms of possessions, however they quite lack in personal relationships.
Since the 60's we have taken from those who have achieved and given it too those who haven't and yet those billions possibly trillions of dollars in income redistribution hasn't achieved the results you are hoping to achieve, how much longer does government regulate only to fail at the desired results ??
I'm a firm believer if people were to see that they could excel without the government taking half of what they make many might be more inclined to try even harder to climb the social-economic ladder.
We have people who have kids they can't afford, pets they can't afford, houses they can't afford and yet every time an individual or company starts to fail government steps in with a needed influx of cash which comes directly out of our pockets.
Failure is an educational tool which can benefit the masses and must be used in order to benefit society as a whole. I live within my means and I also am determined not to be a burden on society as our funds are being used to provide for our senior life and the start of our kids life without us. How many people do you know that live a frugal life because they chose to and because the lessons of failure were hard learned at an earlier stage in life ??
At 18 one becomes an adult and it is at that stage in their life they need to decide whether they are going to better themselves or blame family upbringing for the failures in their life.
Government needs to provide the necessary items to allow people to achieve success at providing for themselves, this does not come in the forms of entitlements, income redistribution, earmark spending, nor providing services which are already available in the private sector. Government has over regulated every industry in this nation and overtaxed every company establishing a headquarters here.
Companies do not pay taxes they pass this on to the people, they also will not stay in business long if people can not afford their product. Simple supply and demand equation can determine which items by which social economic group will be purchased.
Could oil companies reduce the profit of which is used to explore for new reserves YES, however the problem resides in the factual knowledge that their is absolutely NO competition in terms of energy resources which allows for higher profits to be taken. The easiest answer is to open the marketplace up which would allow for more energy efficient ideas to hit the marketplace and would give the individual more opportunities for advancement either through research, ownership, profit sharing, and a host of other ways to earn more money.
I'm not quite sure but you seem to want government to create a solution, for a problem that government created in the first place. Using earmarks and entitlement spending government has supplemented industries through favoritism of taxation while using the very same measure to cause competition to dwindle.
All I have to offer up to your statement, Tom, is to say I don't agree with your assessment of human nature or the human condition.
It seems to me people like yourself, who have overcome the adversity of abject poverty and made good on the "American Dream" would be more sympathetic to those in the economic class you have left behind.
Then again, when I think about it, my hope for this is not well-founded. You are keeping good company with the the likes of John
D. Rockerfeller, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford.
I only hope the future of our country is not left to the unsympathetic view of the less fortunate you seem to hold. I must admit that after holding these conversations you don't really seem to fit the bill. I believed you to be a more compassionate being, but I've been wrong in my assessment of people engaged in this mode of public discussion before, so it won't be the first time I've had to say I was wrong about somebody.
I truly hope you will modify your position in the future, but don't condemn you for holding your views. After all, it's far more common for somebody to say "I did it, so should they" than it is for someone to say "I did, but man it was hard. It should be different for people who come after me."
You seemed to have formed an incorrect opinion based upon something you read on an issue which I have NOT addressed.
I have and do offer people what I have achieved, I will not give it to them like you seem to be inclined to do, however if they make an effort I'll help I won't do it for them.
I didn't ask government for help neither did I have any except my work ethic, my drive to become something I was not, and the driving need to not live in a rented mobile home in a mobile home lot. There were times I worked 3 jobs at once just to provide for my family. Sorry Stu the people of which you are referring to seem to be quite happy with their lot in life or they would do something to change it.
It all relates to the give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, however teach a man to fish and he'll eat or be able to provide for a lifetime, plus he will be willing to teach another individual to fish.
My wife and I got over our heads once and we paid the price of failure and losing most of what we busted our rear ends to get set an example for how we raise our kids and those we associate with.
Henry Ford was a great example of what a man should be as he put thousands of people to work and allowed them to have the availability to enjoy life in a much easier fashion. Those who worked for him could have invested there dollars to create something that would have allowed them to be a pioneer in the industrial revolution as well, few choose to do so, the same can be said today.
My outlook on life isn't tainted in any manner because I see people excel and become successful regardless of the obstacles placed in front of them because they won't, don't give up hope. Are there those who don't succeed YES there are, however many of these individuals give up on themselves and become what you like to refer to as the less fortunate.
I haven't achieved my little moniker of success because of government, but in spite of it. I have the same roadblocks as most people and yet some would say I have been lucky in life's lottery.
Sorry I busted my @$$ during my 20's, 30's and now 40's to be able to provide for my family and not ask anyone for help. It can be done people are proving it everyday of the week and most of us are working 60+ hour work weeks just so we can by FORCE give to those who refuse to do the same.
I have no problems with helping those that truly need the help like the handicapped, and those that can't work, however I have a huge problem with those who haven't accepted personal responsibility for themselves and their actions and I must supplement them which requires me and millions of others to sacrifice our life, family time so they can be provided what they won't work for.
For those who feel the less fortunate need more assistance nothing prevents you from opening up the checkbook and providing them with a portion of your income.
As far as charity many of us give until we can give no more and yet people still demand the last drop of blood
Stu,
One item I forgot too mention is that I haven't forgotten the socio-economic area I came from as I can go into the Grant Beach area of Springfield and drive down numerous streets in that area and see people who had it way better than I did coming up and yet they seem quite happy with their lot in life.
The house I have isn't fancy the cars I drive are paid for neither of them are a 200 or above in age. We don't own jet skis, ski boat or any other pleasure leisure devise, so in many way I haven't left my economic upbringing we just chose to be able to afford those things of which mean the most to us, such as family time, education for our kids, and being able to provide for ourselves in case of an emergency.
Advise and help is available for the asking and I've even hired individuals which had a low esteem about themselves just to prove to them if they step outside their "comfort zone" they can communicate and excel on a different level. Sometimes I'm surprised at the outcome, however in many instances people don't give themselves enough of a chance and stop before reaching the pinnacle of how they define success
All of your accomplishments are highly commendable, Tom. You have every right to be proud and I wouldn't do anything to say you shouldn't.
The problem is our society as a whole does not have enough people like you who endeavor to teach people to fish. So...that is where government programs come in. You are insistent that ALL government programs are entitlements and handouts. So be it. You're wrong, but it's what you believe. I want other programs to teach people how to fish so they can eat for a lifetime.
Henry Ford was a bigot and an anti-Semite. He knew how to make a buck, but he was a sorry excuse for a human being. If you want to sing his praises, you have every right to. He cheated and coerced workers. He is probably more responsible than any single individual for the rise of the United Auto Workers Union. I'm sure you think unions did this country a disservice, but I'm prepared to say that if it were not for Henry Ford, there never would have been a need for the Auto Worker's Union.
Of course there were other labor movements, but Henry Ford epitomized the need for such unions.
I'm not attacking your accomplishments, but if you're going to insist on idolizing the unsavory characters of human history, I reserve the right to call you on it.
Henry Ford was a anti-semitic, money grubbing, bigotted and ego-maniacal SOB. He did a lot for the economy of the U.S. and was one of the founders of the industrial complex that has fueled the worldwide war machine for over 100 years. He supported the Nazis. He is NOT an exemplary American. He worshipped the dollar while giving lip-service to God.
You may not have directly addressed that one particular topic directly, but you certainly danced around it enough for me to make the inference.
Like I said, Tom. I admire you for all those things and I wish there were more people who followed your example. I don't, however, agree with your assessment of human nature or your choice of American heroes.
It's a free country, though. And we keep the blog civil, so I'm happy.
I wish a lot of things were different about our world. Maybe they will be one day.
Actually I believe when unions first got started they were needed, my wife's grandfather was instrumental in getting unions into the coal mining areas. There are many unscrupulous people in the industrialization of this nation and many of them still serve in some capacity in government.
Where you and I have a HUGE disagreement is that you believe(IMO) that government is the only means by which charity can be given to the masses. I find much more charity in the private sector one only need look at 9-11 Katrina and various other natural disasters to see the compassion of the American people, however many of us believe the people sucking from the government teet needs to wein themselves eventually, this hasn't happened.
There are generations of peole collecting welfare whether it be earned or not, that is an entitlement and creates a class of people that believe government(you & I)owe them a stipend so they can go on.
WIC is a program which has HUGE abuses and these are allowed to occur because once a government program starts there is no getting rid of it.
"Henry Ford was a bigot and an anti-Semite" and this is his right to be such, however at that point the government should have ended all contracts with him and the Ford Motor Company.
There are many who feel it there right to control others because they don't agree with how that individual talks, walks, eats, or thinks. This is a very dangerous mindset and leads to expansive government interdiction into our everyday lives.
As far as the war machine we are probably in agreement, cept I don't believe the U.S. should have in any way joined in WW II, Korea, Vietnam, invaded Iraq or any other action that I missed that has nothing to do with our national security.
Henry Ford by no means is a hero to me, I was just pointing out something he did which benefited the masses.
Those people who I hold in high esteem are long gone from planet earth and were long gone before the industrial revolution occurred.
If there were any individual alive today that I would look up to it would probably be Ron Paul.
Thanks, guys, I really enjoyed reading this exchange between the two of you.
I can see both of your arguments and respect them both but on the issue of people choosing to live the way they live, I think I tend to agree more with Tom than I do with Stu, and I can give you a personal example of why I believe Tom's idea of people making a choice in how they live is true.
I graduated from high school in 1977 and my entire adult life has been spent in just getting by. As a general rule I am very happy when I can afford to simply pay necessary bills, which are not much, buy enough gas to get where I need to go, eat an occasional meal out and stock the refrigerator and the house with necessary commodities, cleaning supplies and personal items.
In short, money has never meant that much to me and things have never meant that much to me. I consider myself to have everything I need if I pay my bills and have transportation to get where I need to go to make more money to pay my bills.
I raised two step-sons in my first marriage. One of my step-sons had real drive. He wanted and did go to college, he liked nice things and worked hard so that he could have them. He loved to play the guitar and exceled at it because he practiced for hours every day.
The other son didn't have any drive, that I could see. He liked nice things so long as they were given to him but didn't care about school, didn't care about work, didn't care about chores and generally would have liked nothing better than to have someone else take care of him. The last I knew he was flopping on a friend's couch without a job. He dropped out of school a few short months before he was due to graduate. He was JUST as intelligent and had JUST as much potential as his brother but he didn't care much about working to get ahead.
People choose their lots in life most of the time. People decide whether having things is worth breaking their necks over or not. It's a pretty simple thing. Some people are driven, some people are not and people have all sorts of priorities they have set for themselves. For some, the priority is having more time to sit on the couch playing video games and watching television. For others it is "bringing home the bacon," for yet another, it might mean working just enough to pay the bills and be able to help out another person in need.
There are rich people who live like poor people and poor people who are rich in spirit and blessed in love and companionship. People can choose to work as hard as they want to work.
I could follow Tom's example and decide to work three jobs for a while until the mortgage was paid off and get it paid off early, then maybe afford to buy a car with a better paint job. I don't. Not because I can't, I just don't. That makes it a choice, doesn't it? Aren't I choosing to live poorly? Well, it depends on what one considers to be poor. Is the state of being poor defined by how much money one has or how content one is with what one has? I believe it is the latter. I believe a person is as rich as a person believes he is and money has little to do with it.
Now, there are those who cannot work, I am happy there are safety nets in place for those people, but there are also people who could work more and harder if they wanted to and afford health insurance, a better car, better clothing for their children, etc., and they choose not to and they choose to avail themselves of government assistance at times when it really isn't necessary.
I could be wrong, sure, but that's what I think about it.
Thanks, Jackie. Yes we all have choices in the course of life. In the case of your two step-sons, it's a common example to demonstrate Tom's point. Especially, in the middle class we see a lack of ambition and drive among young people.
Tom mentioned being a foster child and living in abject poverty during his youth. He mentioned the trailer park and some of the adversity he faced growing up.
In the case of step-son #2 Jackie, do you think he'll be that way all his life? If he is, his life will probably be short. So, let's presume he will be productive by getting a job. He doesn't have to be an engineer or lawyer, just a clerk somewhere or a laborer...does that lack of ambition exclude him from basic services this country is perfectly capable of providing?
I don't know why most people are determined to turn my arguments into some radical proposition of redistribution of weatlth, socialism or the dreaded C word.
It's a matter of priorities in spending. I view our national priorities as such (sometimes they change in terms of urgency, but generally, these are what I view as core responsibilities of our government): Energy, Public Health and Education.
Energy: if this country's leaders make the decision to implement and develop alternative sources of energy, responsibly increase domestic drilling and create a nationwide two-way energy grid allowing individuals and private businesses to become producers our country will be nearly energy self-sufficient in 50 years.
Public Health: If this country's leaders make the difficult choice of further regulating the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in this country and earmark the additional revenue for subsidizing private insurance for those unable to afford it, we will quickly be able to address many of the health crises facing our country. Let's face it: healthy people are more of an asset than unhealthy people. Urgent care for the underinsured is costing everybody involved exorbitant amounts of money. The insurance industry uses this figure to justify ever-increasing premiums. Pharmaceutical companies are taking steps to make their products more affordable, and that's great. The fact they're doing it at all, however, speaks to the urgency of the issue. They never would have instituted programs like these, if they weren't feeling popular sentiment turning against them and their HUGE profit margins.
Education: There are so many alternatives to the traditional public school setting, there is no single right way to educate ALL children. However, a strong public education system is the foundation for all of it. The country must make sure the public system of education remains viable, while providing the economic validity of privately sponsored forms of education, such as home schooling, parochial and private schools.
Diversity in approach is the key to providing each of these core functions of government. Remaining embedded in a singular philosophy and approach to any of these issues is the primary problem facing our country.
Yes, we all have choices in life. However, it is the range of choice which determines how great our society can become. The range of choice differs between socio-economic classes. The poor, in general, have a limited range of choices, the middle-class have a wider range of choices and the rich have the greatest variety of choices available to them.
There will always be lazy people. There will always be industrious people. Both types of people transcend all socio-economic classes.
I guess my main point is: I don't believe our government should exist to punish people for their individual levels of ambition.
Our country has the wherewithal to provide adequate and affordable healthcare for every citizen. We don't have to become a socialist economy to do it, either.
As a matter of fact, I don't see the need to raise taxes or redistribute wealth to accomplish these goals at all. All we need to do is reprioritize.
"Public Health: If this country's leaders make the difficult choice of further regulating the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in this country and earmark the additional revenue for subsidizing private insurance for those unable to afford it, we will quickly be able to address many of the health crises facing our country. Let's face it: healthy people are more of an asset than unhealthy people. Urgent care for the underinsured is costing everybody involved exorbitant amounts of money. The insurance industry uses this figure to justify ever-increasing premiums. Pharmaceutical companies are taking steps to make their products more affordable, and that's great. The fact they're doing it at all, however, speaks to the urgency of the issue. They never would have instituted programs like these, if they weren't feeling popular sentiment turning against them and their HUGE profit margins".
Stu a huge problem I have with this statement can be simply comparing one industry to another. In the health insurance industry we have heavy mandates which require companies and individuals alike to pay for services they may never use. If the employers didn't start providing health insurance back in the 40's because of wage freezes instituted by government we would have true competition in the marketplace and the insurance companies would have to compete against one another. As it is the Insurance Commissioners of each state regulate which companies can compete for these services within the states and thus competition in pricing is lacking.
Take the cell phone industry, when I first got a cell phone the terms were 100 "free minutes" at a cost of $250 a month then $.25 per minute thereafter during "off peak times" on peak hours cost much more. That was back in the early 80's, now 90% of the public has a cell phone either by contract or prepaid. Services has continued to go up while the rates continue to come down because these companies are competing for services from business and the private sector. There is NO government regulation regarding how much minimum time is required in order to have cell phone coverage.
This is how to make things better for all people and the cell phone industry has plans that can fit almost every budget even those whose only income is the welfare check.
Thanks Jackie, your example shows proof positive that "drive" isn't instilled in a person it is a learned trait either by reading, watching, or talking to someone who has "it"
In my own business I can get people who have never been involved in sales to become more successful then those who have, simply because those who have never done it a more inclined to learn from someone while the others already "know" everything. Granted this statement doesn't alway pan out but it is more true then not.
People need to find there comfort zone of wealth, work, knowledge, and the like. Just because a person has money does not mean they are happy many are miserable as they believe money defines one's self worth.
I only worked three jobs too allow the wife to remain at home and raise the kids, this was very important to her and I as well, and I was more inclined to make the sacrifice then to tell her we couldn't afford it and she would have to go back to work.
Competition is the essence of how prices get driven down. If K-Mart and Target went out of business Wal-Mart would have no competition and thus raise there prices to have a larger profit margin for their investors. As it stands now Wal-Mart must buy in quantities larger then the competition to buy cheaper, they also purchase inferior products which are not assembled as well as those you can find at better retailers, thus the cheaper price.
Everyone that can provide for themselves should and those who truly can't need to be taken care of, however this does not mean we should be taking care of everyone who think they can't do for themselves.
Stu, I chose a couple of things to comment on from your answer:
"I guess my main point is: I don't believe our government should exist to punish people for their individual levels of ambition."
I'd agree, but neither do I feel our government should exist to reward people who choose to use less energy because they don't have the drive or ambition to earn what, apparently, in your opinion, is the government's job to provide, or at least what you may believe is the government's job to subsidize for people who chose to do less and seek that subsidy. Feel free to correct me if I have mischaracterized your opinion.
It is a basic ideological difference. We don't have to agree on it, we aren't likely going to sway each other from our positions but I think it's important to explain our positions so they are not misunderstood.
It isn't that I care about people who are poor less than you do, it is that I do not feel it is the government's duty to care for poor people simply because they are poor, because, as I think we have established, oftentimes, being poor is the choice of the poor. Some people choose to be poor because that is the way they have prioritized things in their lives, not because of an inability to work, but because they may not enjoy working, it IS work, after all. Maybe they have chosen playing as their priority, maybe they would rather spend time with a loved one instead of working.
I did that with my Mother, tending to her needs and eating a meal with her every day when she was in the nursing home. I could have, instead, said, "I don't have the free time to spend with you everyday, Mom. We have bills to pay and I must work," but I made the choice that I wanted my Mother to feel loved, needed and more important to me than anything (other than my husband, bless his heart for being so supportive). You see? My Mother was my top priority at the end of her life. She was more important to me than even paying my bills at that time because I knew when my Mother was gone I wouldn't have the option of making her number one anymore. Her feeling loved at the end of her life was the most important thing in my life to me. It was my priority.
Tom could have worked three jobs and his wife could have worked one, too, if money and having things were of more import to them than having a Mother staying at home to be with their children in their formative years, homeschooling because they felt it was best for the children, but they too made a choice.
Tom could have worked one job and his wife stay home with the children and they could have gone down to the social services office and asked for food stamps, but, you see, Tom's convictions would not allow him to ask for government assistance. He provided for his family and made great sacrifices of time and energy in order to do so, he didn't look to the government as if they owed him assistance because he doesn't believe the government owes him assistance (at least that is my understanding, he can surely correct me if I have assumed too much, that isn't my intention).
You wrote:
"...I don't see the need to raise taxes or redistribute wealth to accomplish these goals at all. All we need to do is reprioritize."
What you are reprioritizing is the use of taxpayers' dollars and it may be your opinion that using taxpayers' dollars to subsidize those who have less drive and ambition than those who pay more in taxes because they have the drive and ambition lacking in the poor people but you deny it is redistribution of wealth and, I'm sure you have your reasons for thinking there is some sort of distinction between redistribution of wealth and prioritizing the use of taxpayers' dollars but I simply disagree. I see it as you, wishing to take the EXTRA portion of taxpayer monies earned by those people who have more drive and more ambition and subsidizing, in part, those people, who for no physical reason, have chosen other priorities than making enough money to provide those things for themselves. That, to me, is redistribution of wealth.
Certainly, we aren't all Bill Gates but we can all work as much as we need and live within our means. If parents feel providing health insurance, for instance, for themselves and their children is a priority, then they will work enough hours above meeting other essential needs to provide that health insurance and they will research health insurance programs to find the one that best suits their needs and fits into their budget. If they don't believe it is a priority, or don't make it one, and are unwilling to work extra hours to provide it then why should the government, through tax payer dollars collected from other Americans, buy the policy or pay for their health care needs? Is health care really a priority at that point? It doesn't seem to me that if people are unwilling to make it a priority for themselves that the government should take it upon itself to make it one for them.
It makes no sense to me. People who are able to work more, earn more and provide more for their families but choose not to make health insurance a priority, in my opinion, shouldn't ask someone else just to give it to them because they don't want to work for it.
Why, I consider having my own transportation a necessity but I wouldn't dream of asking the government to buy me a car to get to the meetings I attend, why would I ask them to buy me a health insurance policy or offer health care to me for free if I am able to work for it and yet do not? If they offer health care to me for nothing and no good reason, why CAN'T I ask for a car too?
Who gets to decide the priorities? You're priorities are not the same as my priorities.
Why should the government choose to fund your priorities over my priorities? No, it is better that the government stop taxing people so much and stop setting peoples' priorities FOR them.
In my opinion, this "give me" mentality is not the mentality on which our nation was built and I like our nation and I want our nation to return to being more aligned with its original intent.
I believe if it was the original intent of the founders of this nation that the government should provide such things as "free" (we all know it ISN'T free) health care to people, then such things would have been written into the constitution and those things would have been offered from the beginning. The fact that they were not offered from the beginning should tell us something.
Well, Jackie, I'm not going to itemize your response. I'll just state some things and you can take it for what it's worth.
First of all, for MOST poor people it is not a choice. No way, no how. Millions are born into poverty and never get out of the pit, through no fault of their own. Hundreds of thousands lose their liveliehoods and life savings through no fault of their own. (Lots of examples of this, if I have to enumerate them for you, it's a lost cause, anyway.)
Quite honestly, I don't believe I've ever purported to CARE about poor people more than you or anybody else. I'm quite guilty of being selfish, self-serving and putting myself before others, but I am cognizant enough of the human condition and human nature to believe most of the poor people in this country are NOT there because they sat down, weighed the pros and cons, and decided to be poor. Such a notion is preposterous to me and, frankly, unworthy of further comment.
I DO propose the reprioritizing of the way our government spends tax dollars. $10 billion a month on a fruitless war? There will never be an end to civil strife in the greater middle east or Iraq, in particular, because the cultural and religious divisions in the region may never be fully bridged, but are certainly NOT going to be overcome by the imposition of our socio-political ideals on a sovereign foreign country.
No, friends, even if I conceded the war was undertaken by our elected leadership with noble ideals (and I adamantly REFUTE the suggestion it was) the only purpose the conflict has served is to secure oil leases for GLOBAL oil companies. They are not AMERICAN oil companies. The oil industry, like nearly all other non-nationalized industries in the world, is controlled by global financial interests; NOT just American interests.
If this country is going to go into debt, then I think it should do so for the ideal of making life better for AMERICAN people and that includes POOR AMERICANS.
I find it ludicrous to make the assertion most people in this country who do not have health insurance don't have it because they choose not to have it
I don't remember calling for EXTRA taxes to help the poor. I remember supporting reallocation of current revenue. The problem is, Jackie, you didn't mischaracterize my opinions. For the most part, you disregarded them entirely, and the piecemeal job of itemization you did for critique's sake served only to misrepresent the spirit of what I said.
Spend some time in the inner city with kids who attend dilapidated schools. Dish out food in a soup kitchen in Detroit. Volunteer to help sick and homeless people in St. Louis. Spend Thanksgiving serving dinner to the indigent and disenfranchised (just 4 hours...MOST people can't handle much more than that) then talk to me about how these poor people are there because they made the conscious decision to have close to nothing in their lives.
Quite frankly, the opinions you and Tom express vividly remind me of the unsympathetic characters Charles Dickens depicted in such classics as "Oliver Twist", "David Copperfield" and "A Christmas Carol". Actually, I hold some of them in higher esteem when it comes to their view of the impoverished people of the world...
They actually believed it was God's will for poor people to be in their sorry state. They didn't blame the poor themselves.
Stu, your statements are in quotation, mine are not. - J.
"Quite honestly, I don't believe I've ever purported to CARE about poor people more than you or anybody else."
I meant the general "you" as a more liberally minded thinker as opposed to "me," a more conservative thinker.
It wasn't intended personally.
"I am cognizant enough of the human condition and human nature to believe most of the poor people in this country are NOT there because they sat down, weighed the pros and cons, and decided to be poor. Such a notion is preposterous to me and, frankly, unworthy of further comment."
By people NOT sitting down, weighing the pros and cons about what they want to be a priority, they are making their decision. By NOT going to the voting booth people make a decision.
People make choices, sometimes they make choices by not making a conscious choice at all and just allowing life to take its course, but that, in and of itself, is a choice, all the same.
I think the only way a person could prove that such a notion is preposterous and unworthy of further comment would be to individually survey every person who earns at or below the poverty level and, even then, one would be have to suspend any disbelief and believe that when people say they are poor for reasons completely out of their control and they had no choices that they could have made to make their financial circumstances turn out differently were not, for their own selfish and self serving reasons, tweaking their life stories so that they could get what they want through subsidy from the government rather than engaging in the hard work to earn it for themselves.
Certainly, children have no choice as to who their parents are and how willing they are to work and I don't believe children should be forced to live substandard lives through no fault of their own. There are disabled people who genuinely cannot work. I'm not speaking about those people, but I promise you, those who chose other priorities in life and have the mentality that the government should give them the things they have not made a priority for themselves are going to present their stories as though they had no choice. I simply don't think they deserve getting something for *free,* something they are capable of working for but choose not to, because they want it. Again, if that's the case and I think a car is a necessity, why can't I ask the government to get me one?
"I DO propose the reprioritizing of the way our government spends tax dollars. $10 billion a month on a fruitless war?"
First of all, it is a matter of opinion that the Iraq war is "a fruitless war," and I don't know that I care to defend that it is a fruitless war or is not a fruitless war, however, we have fought many wars, as a nation, in the past. Our government did not provide *free* health care to people before the Iraq war was begun, so the idea that the Iraq war is somehow keeping our government from providing things which you believe are a priority to me, who has chosen, by my free will, not to make it a priority is a straw man argument.
Who do you think you are, or the government is, to determine for me what my priorities should be in the first place?
I respect you, Stu, but I am not willing to give over my right to set my own life priorities to you or the government because you, or they, believe they know what is best for me and how best to use my money. Give me my money back or stop taking so much of my money and stop pretending like I need you to decide for me what is the best use of that money! Talk about presumptuous!
BUT, these are questions decided by the voters, certainly. Voters will have a say on election day about what they choose as the priorities for the expenditure of the tax payers dollar, however, there are no true conservatives running for President and too often representatives are elected by saying what they think their constituents want to hear and then deciding for, rather than representing their constituents. This is the frustration that conservatives face, and likely it is the same sort of frustration liberals face, however, not thinking like a liberal I can't really speak to their frustrations.
AND for perspective, there are people who live in third world countries who would love to have a shot at the lifestyle of an American living at or just below the poverty level. You see, feeling poor is different than BEING poor. Labels, labels everywhere. We are a nation and a world full of labels, but that's a whole 'nuther topic. How did we get to a place where other people, name your favorite group or governmental entity, decide what defines a state of being?
"There will never be an end to civil strife in the greater middle east or Iraq, in particular, because the cultural and religious divisions in the region may never be fully bridged, but are certainly NOT going to be overcome by the imposition of our socio-political ideals on a sovereign foreign country."
Exactly. There will never be an end to civil strife in America, because the cultural, religious and socio-political divisions in the region may never be fully bridged, but are certainly NOT going to be overcome by the imposition of one political ideology or liberal (or conservative) philosophy being forced on those of another, differing political philosophy. That, my friend, is why the government has no business, either one way or another, deciding social priorities for individual citizens.
We can all have our own opinions and respect them, respectively, Stu. Where I would like to see a line drawn is in you, or your representing party (if you have one), or me, I'm an independent without a party, deciding through government mandate that one political philosophy is better or right and another is worse or wrong. That is why opinions about social uses for taxpayer dollars are best left alone completely. Unfortunately, there seems to be a presumption right now, in the political realm, that it is the government's job to sort these things out for the people and the people are held in contempt as though they need someone to decide for them the best use of their money.
Now, you can argue that a state of being poor is not a social issue and I might agree that the state of being poor is not a social issue in some cases, defenseless children, truly disabled people, but I doubt those people make up the majority of people who fall under the label of living at or below the poverty level. I would wager the majority of those people simply chose to work less for one reason or another but admit I'd likely never be able to prove that.
"Quite frankly, the opinions you and Tom express vividly remind me of the unsympathetic characters Charles Dickens depicted in such classics as "Oliver Twist", "David Copperfield" and "A Christmas Carol". Actually, I hold some of them in higher esteem when it comes to their view of the impoverished people of the world..."
Aha! So, if I HAD meant you, personally, believe you are more caring about poor people than Tom or I, I wouldn't have been off base at all?
I believe you might have, earlier, protested too much. ;)
Jackie, you wrote:
"Aha! So, if I HAD meant you, personally, believe you are more caring about poor people than Tom or I, I wouldn't have been off base at all?"
Actually, I didn't share this opinion until you went on to explain your complete view on human nature etc. I am more forgiving and sympathetic toward poor people. I don't think it means I care MORE. The condition of the less fortunate obviously occupies some part of your conscience, but your determination of their condition as being a matter of choice simply renders you less sympathetic. But yes, if you are equating MORE with sympathy, compassion and forgiveness...I believe I do care MORE about poor people than you and Tom. If you take MORE to be a reference to how much time and mental space either of us devote to them (which is what I was talking about), I would say I probably don't care any more about them than you and Tom, although I do have substantial time spent in volunteer efforts to help the poor.
"Who do you think you are, or the government is, to determine for me what my priorities should be in the first place?"
I never claimed that the government or myself had the right to determine your priorities for you.
"First of all, it is a matter of opinion that the Iraq war is 'a fruitless war,' and I don't know that I care to defend that it is a fruitless war or is not a fruitless war".
Well, history will tell us what the fruits of the Iraq War are. I predict oil leases will be the only substantial product and those are not likely to benefit you or me. Oh yeah, and a puppet government which will make Iraq the target of terrorism for decades. How better a way is there to guarantee U.S. involvement in the greater region than to establish a puppet state our government will have to protect and bail out for the life of the oil reserves beneath it. It's gonna be better than Korea (the most highly militarized border in the world) only better...we'll have oil fields to defend.
Stu,
It appears to me that you haven taken this conversation into an area where you control both sides of the issue.
If it isn't human nature to want to remain in poverty, then why are people not motivated to remove themselves out of it ??
I recall a statement made by one of my sales managers out in CA when he stated the following "you can take two identical motivated children put one of them in a room with a bunch of toys to play with and the other in a room full of horse shit. The child in the toy room quickly grows tired of playing with all the toys and sits in the room doing nothing, meanwhile the child in the room full of horse shit will sling the crap from one side to another. When asked what he is doing he exclaims with all this crap in here there has got to be a pony in this pile somewhere".
It all rest in one's perspective.
When I first got into sales I used to dread pulling up beside a home that was falling in upon itself as I knew these people wouldn't purchase what I was selling. I have more water treatment equipment installed in homes that look bad then those quarter million dollar homes on the south side of town. I have my perceived notions to why this is but no hard concrete proof.
My point is every individual determines their comfort zone, to some making sums of cash and living the high life is what they desire, others just like to be able to afford monthly bills, afford a decent home and have a happy life. Others feel it their right to have the government fund the lifestyle they have chosen and as such take from others so they don't have to do for themselves.
Research will point out that women on welfare will provide the world with more babies per capita then those who can afford to have children. Here in Greene County alone 50% of the population has government services paying for one form or another of there livelihood. 50% of all child births are paid for by the taxpayer and 50% of women are on WIC. These stats come directly from the health department. Of the women on WIC the greater percentage is from multiple child births not the first time parent.
People by nature fall into three categories
Those who will work
Those who can't work (handicapped)
Those who feel the world owes them and therefore they sit on their rear ends and allow others to provide for them.
I not sure about you but I grew tired of supporting those that CAN support themselves they just chose not to.
Besides the "general welfare clause" where do you assume the federal government is granted the power to provide government entitlements to either industry or individually.
I agree with your assessment of the Iraq war however had this war not been fought there would have been NO reason to spend the money being used for this exercise in futility.
Why do people assume that the money being used for Iraq should have been used for something else, when in reality the money being used for Iraq hasn't even been printed or earned yet so we can be taxed on it.
Tom,
I don't agree with your categorization of people. If I were one to categorize, I would say there are more categories.
Your anecdote about the two identical boys, while cute, is far from grounded in any type of realistic study. You keep talking about research, but you don't cite any studies for me to look at for myself.
I know I'm making sweeping statements myself, but I'm not alluding to research or studies or claiming anything of the sort. About the only study I remember quoting was by the U.S. Energy Dept. confirming T. Boone Picken's wind energy findings, but that was another post entirely.
Look, we're at opposite ends of the spectrum seeking the same goal: namely a better America with fewer poor people and as many people with adequate and affordable health care as possible. You and Jackie started throwing around terms like "free". I never said I wanted free healthcare. I said I wanted adequate and affordable healthcare for everybody. I don't want nationalized or socialized medicine, but I do want to end the stranglehold insurance and pharmaceutical companies have on the medical system. I know the AMA agrees, in part, with this assessment. If competition is part of the answer, then by all means, deregulation is certainly in order, but if you think deregulation is the end all answer to everything, I respectfully disagree.
I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction I illicit from you two about the poverty issue. Surely you are rational to see a single-faceted approach to the question is untenable, but maybe you don't. If you truly believe poverty is the result of low ambition, so be it. I heartily disagree and will leave it at that. However...if some part of you could concede, perhaps, there are more factors which lead to that condition, then maybe motivation along with incentives can be utilized to solve the problem.
I don't ever remember suggesting the problem was easily solved, and I certainly have never proposed the idea of just throwing money at the situation. We all know that has not worked in the past. I do not subscribe, however, to the tunnel-vision approach of simply telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and 'get 'er done'. I think it's simplistic and disrespectful to people who truly have put forth the effort to make their lives better. Sometimes people have to accept the world is a hard place, and simply putting forth the effort is not always going to make it easier. Sometimes a little grease on the wheels makes them less squeaky. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, but removing the wheel, closely examining the problem and fixing it would be preferable than just limping along the wagon trail until it falls off and brings the entire wagon train to a halt.
perhaps it would be beneficial for you to cite an example of how ambition no matter how well intentioned will not solve the issue at hand.
health care in my opinion only becomes affordable when the end user(consumer)knows of it's cost and when people are held accountable for the actions which cause the increasing rates of the whole. Another matter all together is preventative measures such as not drinking alcohol, not smoking, wearing helmets while riding motorcycles and every other common sense issue you can think of, not over eating. However I don't want this to be mandated by government, however the consumer needs to be held responsible for their actions.
Hate to say it, Tom, but that comment is typical "blame the victim" crap. You're actually purporting the reason we can't have affordable health care in this country is due to alcoholism, smoking, unsafe motorcycle riding practices and obesity?
On top of that, when I challenge you to simply cite one of the studies or research you claim to be the basis of your arguments, you place the onus on me to provide an instance where ambition isn't enough to solve the problems of individuals in American society?
I think you're capable enough to find those examples on your own. The fact you don't seem to want to share your sources or do your own research to find examples of my assertions tells me I'd be wasting my time to do it for you.
I hate to say it but we are responsible for our own health of our bodies. If I were to stand on top of a ladder and over extend my reach causing me to fall off said ladder whose fault is it that I fell off the ladders??? NOT it is mine. I smoked for twenty plus years before I quit so I know I have done harm to my body, so why should an individual who eats healthy, doesn't do drugs, is responsible for themselves in every way be responsible for a portion of my stupidity. The best answer is they SHOULDN'T BE no matter how much money they have.
As for the research that I suggested with Greene County and the 50% figures we were told that by Greene County Health officials when I was running for state representative a couple years ago. I thought the numbers were extremely high but we were told by health officials the statistics which they had for this county. Where they got the stats I haven't knowledge of but I would be quite sure they have them somewhere. There is much information that can be garnered from this website,
http://www.ci.springfield.mo.us/health/
however I didn't find anywhere that they asked the respondents why they were receiving social services.
"Hate to say it, Tom, but that comment is typical "blame the victim" crap. You're actually purporting the reason we can't have affordable health care in this country is due to alcoholism, smoking, unsafe motorcycle riding practices and obesity"?
NO that isn't the example I used but just keep thinking that way if it makes you feel better. The reason why I said we can't and won't have affordable health care and I quote is "health care in my opinion only becomes affordable when the end user(consumer)knows of it's cost and when people are held accountable for the actions which cause the increasing rates of the whole".
You see my statement taken directly from the last post spells out the end user which is the consumer hasn't the knowledge of the cost of the product.
Post a Comment