Comments on: The Common Good http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/ B-CC HS Student Newspaper Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:32:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Doron Tauber http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-604 Doron Tauber Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:07:46 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-604 http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-42.htm http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-42.htm

]]> By: Devin Doherty http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-530 Devin Doherty Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:40:33 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-530 MORE TROLLING MORE RANTING THIS WILL NEVER DIE!!! LET THE FLAME WAR BEGIN!!!! MORE TROLLING
MORE RANTING
THIS WILL NEVER DIE!!!
LET THE FLAME WAR BEGIN!!!!

]]> By: John Benson http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-514 John Benson Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:35:16 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-514 Ok, first of all: I love the picture you attached to this article. Very funny. As for your political ideas, there are elements of truth to them, but they are way too extreme to actually be taken seriously. There is one particular thing I have to address: "This is evident in California, where even Oprah cannot afford the taxes. She is forced to live in her home only part-time to keep from having to pay the outrageous taxes in that state." You have got to be joking. The reason she only lives there part time is because she owns MORE THAN 7 OTHER HOMES. Obviously there is going to be some hefty property tax on a 50 million dollar estate, but it's not about to put her on the street. Ok, first of all: I love the picture you attached to this article. Very funny.

As for your political ideas, there are elements of truth to them, but they are way too extreme to actually be taken seriously.

There is one particular thing I have to address: “This is evident in California, where even Oprah cannot afford the taxes. She is forced to live in her home only part-time to keep from having to pay the outrageous taxes in that state.”

You have got to be joking. The reason she only lives there part time is because she owns MORE THAN 7 OTHER HOMES. Obviously there is going to be some hefty property tax on a 50 million dollar estate, but it’s not about to put her on the street.

]]> By: Justin Skovholt http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-507 Justin Skovholt Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:20:21 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-507 Way to cite sources...again... China has very tight economic and trade controls, which is a cornerstone of capitalism. Your view of the world is extremely twisted to fit your beliefs. Furthermore, I said nothing about America having the highest average standards of living in the world. I said the highest standards of living are available in America. Big difference. That's why so many rich and famous people live here. Way to cite sources…again…

China has very tight economic and trade controls, which is a cornerstone of capitalism. Your view of the world is extremely twisted to fit your beliefs.

Furthermore, I said nothing about America having the highest average standards of living in the world. I said the highest standards of living are available in America. Big difference. That’s why so many rich and famous people live here.

]]> By: dimitri halikias http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-503 dimitri halikias Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:39:01 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-503 Once again, you manage to ignore the facts. China is not at all being capitalist, in fact they are engaging in 19th century mercantilist-esque economic policies, artificially deflating the value of their currency and thus boosting exports. I also have no idea where your idea of Ireland's economic success came from, but actually the middle-upper classes in Ireland pay between 25-41 percent of income in taxes. Hows that for redistributionary? Once again, you manage to ignore the facts. China is not at all being capitalist, in fact they are engaging in 19th century mercantilist-esque economic policies, artificially deflating the value of their currency and thus boosting exports. I also have no idea where your idea of Ireland’s economic success came from, but actually the middle-upper classes in Ireland pay between 25-41 percent of income in taxes. Hows that for redistributionary?

]]> By: Doron Tauber http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-501 Doron Tauber Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:49:01 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-501 the highest standard of living is in Ireland, not America. for the time being we pretend to be an advantageous place. in time, people will realize that China is more capitalist than we are the highest standard of living is in Ireland, not America. for the time being we pretend to be an advantageous place. in time, people will realize that China is more capitalist than we are

]]> By: Justin Skovholt http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-497 Justin Skovholt Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:08:00 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-497 You addressed nearly none of my concerns. But this rhetoric is really worthless and is an idle threat. The rich will stay in the US simply because it's an advantageous place to be. The freedoms guaranteed along with the access to extremely high standards of living in the US are enough to ensure a major presence of rich elite. They are largely willing to put up with being taxed for social programs because of the tangible and intangible benefits of living here. You addressed nearly none of my concerns.

But this rhetoric is really worthless and is an idle threat. The rich will stay in the US simply because it’s an advantageous place to be. The freedoms guaranteed along with the access to extremely high standards of living in the US are enough to ensure a major presence of rich elite. They are largely willing to put up with being taxed for social programs because of the tangible and intangible benefits of living here.

]]> By: Doron Tauber http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-494 Doron Tauber Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:46:06 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-494 those who have "excess" don't like being drawn from, and will eventually get fed up and leave, and then who will fund the social programs? those who have “excess” don’t like being drawn from, and will eventually get fed up and leave, and then who will fund the social programs?

]]> By: dimitri halikias http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-493 dimitri halikias Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:57:21 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-493 Doron, these notions that the government is always the problem and that spending is always bad have been disproved time and time again. You kept quoting and referencing Reagan, but interestingly enough did not include a single fact or statistic to back up your rhetoric, so let me try. Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest tax increase of the past 50 years. In fact, no peace-time president in American HISTORY has raised taxes as quickly and as dramatically as Reagan did. Following his 1981 tax cuts Reagan pushed through two MASSIVE tax hikes, one in 1982, and the other in 1983 under the auspices of the Social Security Reform Act, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by libertarian superstar Alan Greenspan. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down. Now that the myth that Reagan dramatically cut taxes has been disproved, let us move on to your second argument Doron – that government is and always has been the problem, and that the individual should be allowed to fail and succeed within the capitalist market. Let me preface by stating that I am a great believer in the free market, and I am very watchful and skeptical of overly expansive and intrusive government handout programs. However, to assert as you did that all welfare has done is cause irreparable harm to the rights and power of the individual, is simply false. Every single major period of economic growth in the past 100 years has been accompanied by expanded protections of the individual’s economic well being. You were quick to quote Reagan and his very true argument that “The greatest social program is a job.” However, what you once again failed to mention was that the Social Security Reform Act I mentioned earlier. This act’s major provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. The President you praised for reducing government and valuing the economic achievements of the individual also bankrolled and supported the largest expansion of welfare since LBJ’s Great Society. My final point is a criticism of your harsh attack on the tax system. You were quick to attack any form of increased taxation as “redistribution.” That is total crap. If used properly (as done by both Reagan and Clinton) taxes are an excellent tool to boost the strength of the national economy. In your criticism of the failure of taxation and its socialist undertones, you surprisingly failed to back up your rhetoric with facts. So once again, allow me the privilege of using facts to back up my argument. In your article you make it sound as if the economic prosperity under the Reagan administration was unparalleled because of his rabidly conservative rhetoric. This is simply not true. The economy grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family, adjusted for inflation, rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988. If Reagan is the model of a successful economic presidency, then why did President Clinton’s economic accomplishments far outshine his? While, as you may have guessed, I am critical of your out-of-date and ignorant rhetoric backed up by no statistical evidence, I find myself having to agree with the original point of your article – the myth of the common good. Not because of the pseudo-economic principles you espoused, but because of my own views of America’s rugged individualist history and rise to power I find myself shuddering when people argue for collective sacrifice for the promotion of the common good. Throughout our history, the single most affective and powerful tool for expanding economic prowess and strength has been by valuing the rights, freedoms, and independence of the individual. This does not mean that the state does not have an obligation to the protection its citizens, but it does mean that individuals should be given every chance to succeed economically and politically in this nation. There is nothing more important than the continued value on the individual as the fundamental measure of America’s greatness. Doron, these notions that the government is always the problem and that spending is always bad have been disproved time and time again. You kept quoting and referencing Reagan, but interestingly enough did not include a single fact or statistic to back up your rhetoric, so let me try. Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest tax increase of the past 50 years. In fact, no peace-time president in American HISTORY has raised taxes as quickly and as dramatically as Reagan did. Following his 1981 tax cuts Reagan pushed through two MASSIVE tax hikes, one in 1982, and the other in 1983 under the auspices of the Social Security Reform Act, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by libertarian superstar Alan Greenspan. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
Now that the myth that Reagan dramatically cut taxes has been disproved, let us move on to your second argument Doron – that government is and always has been the problem, and that the individual should be allowed to fail and succeed within the capitalist market. Let me preface by stating that I am a great believer in the free market, and I am very watchful and skeptical of overly expansive and intrusive government handout programs. However, to assert as you did that all welfare has done is cause irreparable harm to the rights and power of the individual, is simply false. Every single major period of economic growth in the past 100 years has been accompanied by expanded protections of the individual’s economic well being. You were quick to quote Reagan and his very true argument that “The greatest social program is a job.” However, what you once again failed to mention was that the Social Security Reform Act I mentioned earlier. This act’s major provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. The President you praised for reducing government and valuing the economic achievements of the individual also bankrolled and supported the largest expansion of welfare since LBJ’s Great Society.
My final point is a criticism of your harsh attack on the tax system. You were quick to attack any form of increased taxation as “redistribution.” That is total crap. If used properly (as done by both Reagan and Clinton) taxes are an excellent tool to boost the strength of the national economy. In your criticism of the failure of taxation and its socialist undertones, you surprisingly failed to back up your rhetoric with facts. So once again, allow me the privilege of using facts to back up my argument. In your article you make it sound as if the economic prosperity under the Reagan administration was unparalleled because of his rabidly conservative rhetoric. This is simply not true. The economy grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family, adjusted for inflation, rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988. If Reagan is the model of a successful economic presidency, then why did President Clinton’s economic accomplishments far outshine his?
While, as you may have guessed, I am critical of your out-of-date and ignorant rhetoric backed up by no statistical evidence, I find myself having to agree with the original point of your article – the myth of the common good. Not because of the pseudo-economic principles you espoused, but because of my own views of America’s rugged individualist history and rise to power I find myself shuddering when people argue for collective sacrifice for the promotion of the common good. Throughout our history, the single most affective and powerful tool for expanding economic prowess and strength has been by valuing the rights, freedoms, and independence of the individual. This does not mean that the state does not have an obligation to the protection its citizens, but it does mean that individuals should be given every chance to succeed economically and politically in this nation. There is nothing more important than the continued value on the individual as the fundamental measure of America’s greatness.

]]> By: Justin Skovholt http://tattlerextra.org/2010/03/the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-491 Justin Skovholt Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:54:36 +0000 http://tattlerextra.org/?p=2171#comment-491 >Giving an unattributed "fact" about Oprah >Using Animal Farm as a case study for the United States >Implying freedom in every case is good for everyone >Ignoring the fact that our social programs keep many people off the street and in homes or at least with a steady supply of food. Finally, you twist the meaning of the "common good" more than even the most ridiculous politicians. The "common good" does NOT in fact mean "good for everybody", it just means "good for the majority" or alternatively "good for society". Arguing that our social programs how we run them aren't for the "common good" is valid enough, but you seem to lack the perspective of a middle or lower class person in America, for whom the government does good at the "expense" of a very small elite. Given that, social programs as a whole would seem to benefit the "common good" as they help many while drawing primarily on those who have excess to draw on. >Giving an unattributed “fact” about Oprah
>Using Animal Farm as a case study for the United States
>Implying freedom in every case is good for everyone
>Ignoring the fact that our social programs keep many people off the street and in homes or at least with a steady supply of food.

Finally, you twist the meaning of the “common good” more than even the most ridiculous politicians. The “common good” does NOT in fact mean “good for everybody”, it just means “good for the majority” or alternatively “good for society”. Arguing that our social programs how we run them aren’t for the “common good” is valid enough, but you seem to lack the perspective of a middle or lower class person in America, for whom the government does good at the “expense” of a very small elite. Given that, social programs as a whole would seem to benefit the “common good” as they help many while drawing primarily on those who have excess to draw on.

]]>