Hmmm…
He’d be a great vice-president. But he is way too much of a fancy-pants to be a true-leader that is respected globally. I have a hard time believing that he’d be able to sit across the table from a world leader and be respected after this debacle.

Really? Do you really think that world leaders are going to care about that video? I don’t think it makes a difference. Barack Obama is “pretty” too. Outside of Kucinich, Edwards (imo) probably has the best progressive ideas, especially in areas of poverty and healthcare.

I like Rudy G as a person and find him to be quite affable, but I’m not sure being a good mayor of New York means you can be a good president of a country.

Rudy was a good mayor? Not according to a lot of New Yorkers.

I have been a big fan of Kucinich since 2004. I actually voted for him in the primary. By far the most progressive candidate in the field, he is the only one who I believe would make significant change in policies, especially those relating to the war. He is a legit progressive among a field of relatively moderate Democrats.

Unfortunately he has no chance…

Even though he has no chance, I agree with you, Josh and Dave. And in fact, I’m going to vote for him in the primary anyways…precisely because I’ve thought a lot about the “wasting votes on those who won’t win” idea and rejected it. As an American citizen, I have the freedom to vote for who I think would do the best job, and Dennis Kucinich is the guy in my book. When it comes to the general election, I’ll probably go Obama for some of the same reasons Josh suggested; but mostly because he’s a brilliant guy with good ideas who carries a presence with him that makes me want to see what he’s got in store as a leader.

i agree. i think he’s got no shot. but it’s ridiculous that only the big money raisers get to be the leaders. and not the man/woman with the best ideas and vision. so i’ll vote for him until he loses. even if it means wasting a vote.

and dave. as superficial as it sounds, i do think edwards being a bit of a hair-freak matters in the public perception. in the same way that being an arrogant, apparent half-wit effects the way you are perceived at the table, ala W. i think being seen as a bit of a daisy picker hurts the way you’re viewed. and anybody who pays $400 for a haircut does not understand what i go through on a daily basis and is thus not relevant to me. same way with clinton. i’m sure i have barack romanticized in my head . . . but he seems to be the most down to earth, average joe out of the big 3.

oh. and as much as i hate to admit that what the folks churn out at fox is true, i do believe that he was a good mayor of new york and i think the majority of new yorkers would agree with that.

my only concern is that the “right” is bashing rudy now because they don’t want him to represent them, since they have a man-crush on the “christian” fred thompson. but if rudy won the ticket, we wouldn’t hear anything but how great he was since the day he started walking on water as a 2 year old.

i actually read my mom’s Charisma mag today (read: ultra-Bible-beater-Republican-conservative) and the grand poobah of Charisma, Stephen Strang, endorsed Mike Huckabee.

I’m still wickedly laughing to see what the Religious Right will do if Mitt Romney wins the nomination

I’m really not intending to be mean when I say this, but seriously — if you think that letting the government have complete control over healthcare wouldn’t be a disaster, you’re deluding yourself. All in the hopes of avoiding increasing premiums.

The fact that every major Democratic presidential nominee is making that a central part of their campaign is depressing.

And yes, my top 10 list would look very, very different.

if you think that letting the government have complete control over healthcare wouldn’t be a disaster, you’re deluding yourself.

Well… being that two of the most efficient and highly rated health care systems in the country are the VA system and Medicaire, I sure am not convinced that you are right.

The fact that every major Democratic presidential nominee is making that a central part of their campaign is depressing.

And Mitt Romney would seem to agree too. Or is that just something else that he has flip-flopped on too?

there is no reason my health should be what’s used to make a profit for doctors or insurance companies.

the government could afford if it would quit making bombs. decrease military spending by as little as 15% and it would be a completely funded endeavor.

i’m not sure why socialized medicine is such a bad thing. we have socialized schools. we would all agree that schools shouldn’t run to make a profit.

Quoting socialized education to me as a great example of why socialized medicine would be great doesn’t help your case, by the way.

And Dave, Medicare? Efficient? Are you joking? You probably think Social Security is efficient, too?

Socialized education just makes sure that everyone gets the same crappy education. Socialized medicine just make sure that everyone gets the same crappy health care.

Everybody needs to eat, right? Why not just socialize the food supply, too? Would you want the government to dictate what grocery stores you could shop at and what restaurants you could eat at?

Do you really want the government to dictate what schools your kids go to, as well as what doctors you go to?

i have a hard time with privatization in general. i think instead of making things better, i think it creates a class system in which the poor get stuck with the free stuff and the rich can separate themselves with private schools, private garbage, private utilities, private security, private fire, private military etc.

i think it leads to the lowest common denominator in the “free” stuff and a general race to the bottom in everything else. there are some things where profit should not enter into the equation. instead of bailing out of the system and creating profit-making enclaves, it would be more prudent to fix the education and health care systems we have instead of giving control over to board rooms and stock options.

as far as my list of things that i don’t think profit should enter into the equation on . . . i would say healthcare, education (all the way through college), public utilities, protection (fire and police).

i don’t want medicare. i just want what every senator, representative, and every white house staffer has. i want to be on that plan. it seems to be working pretty good. not kaiser permanente, blue cross blue shield, or any other company that is in the business of making money. my health should not have a for-profit price tag next to it. i’m not a number on some spreadsheet. when i go on the operating table, i want to make sure that my doctor is concerned about me as a patient and my well-being. not some bottom-line the insurance company has passed down to him. collusion is not a conservative principle. it is as liberal as it gets and what we have in our healthcare system is collusion.

excuse my french.

it’s a shame that what was once such a great place has devolved to such a point that we now argue over not losing our right to bend over and take it in the ass.

when big business and big government are in the driver’s seat, and not the people who the republic was create for . . . it’s no longer a republic worth living in or dying for.

This Dennis guy sounds interesting. I love #3 on the list and you’re right, most folks have no idea what impact Americas being involved with WTO and NAFTA actually has on us, let alone what these organizations exist for.

After 2 years of living in Seattle and 26 years, give or take a few months here and there, of living in America I will have to say I fully agree with you in my absolute dismay for the direction in which this country is going and has gone. I have had the hardest time just having a conversation about this country without someone resorting to name calling or automatically throwing my questions into the category of “communism” or “socialism”.

Its almost as if we have been dummed down to the degree that we only know how to have Fox “news” styled debates in which there is only black or white, republican or democrat, etc.

A few months back I started thinking about what it was about this country that compelled my great grandfather to leave his home in Ireland and make the long journey over the sea to America. Actually I contemplated it so much that I decided to do a reverse immigration and take a journey back to the land he left some 90 some odd years ago. I don’t know what I will find upon my arrival in Ireland, as I understand that globalization has been rapidly eating away at the social fabric that once made Ireland what it was.

In all probability I will be in New Zealand when the ’08 elections are taking place and it will be more than interesting to see what the rest of the world thinks of this crazy little asylum we call America.

I would suggest leaving the states for a while if at all possible, even if its only for a few weeks. You and Anna could hook up with a volunteer organization like Peace Corps or Habitat For Humanity or Clean Water For Haiti.

America can drive you insane if it’s all that you’re surrounded by day in and day out.

“it’s a shame that what was once such a great place has devolved to such a point that we now argue over not losing our right to bend over and take it in the ass.”

Which is exactly what happens when you trust the government to make all the choices for you.

While your point of view sounds good in theory, as we’ve argued about before, it doesn’t work. If you don’t trust board rooms, I don’t trust politicians. They have little (or less) concern for me than the board members do. At least if there is competition, I have a choice to shop somewhere else. If the government removes all competition, I’m stuck with whatever option the government has assigned to me.

“i have a hard time with privatization in general. i think instead of making things better, i think it creates a class system in which the poor get stuck with the free stuff and the rich can separate themselves with private schools, private garbage, private utilities, private security, private fire, private military etc.”

So is the root of your view related to wealth envy? Are you envious that the wealth can afford better goods and services? How do you justify that? At the moment, I have enough money to send my kids to private school. Are you envious of me?

Privatization provides choices. Choices allows for ingenuity (something the government sucks at). Choices allows people to be free. I have a problem with socialization because it provides fewer (or no choices), and no freedom.

it’s not envy. it’s that privatization creates a culture that retreats, leaving behind the poor. it creates a class system. and it’s highly individualistic. where the wants of the individuals are more important that the needs of the community.

or better said. where the wants of the rich are more important than the needs of the poor. again, it’s a huge inversion in priorities.

we just have two radically different interpretations of jesus.

And Dave, Medicare? Efficient? Are you joking? You probably think Social Security is efficient, too?

Derek - what are you thing efficient means?

The VA system and Medicare both have extremely low administrative costs (in relation to privatized insurance) which allow for significant cost savings.

Of course… it helps when you don’t have to pay a CEO fat-cat millions of dollars a year.

So is the root of your view related to wealth envy? Are you envious that the wealth can afford better goods and services? How do you justify that? At the moment, I have enough money to send my kids to private school. Are you envious of me?

First of all, that is silly. Nothing was said about being “envious.” What was said was that Josh believes that something should be done about the poor being left out in getting crappy health care, education, etc.

It is not about “envy.” It is looking out for the “least of these” in a way that offers a level playing field. I am not envious that the wealthy can afford better “services” while the poor cannot. I am angry about it. Why should someone not be able to get the surgery that they need because they can’t afford it? Why should someone get a poor education because their parents don’t have enough money for a private school or to move to a better school district?

Wanting to change the class system in this country has nothing to do with envy. It everything to do with a thirst for equality.

The charge to care for “the least of these” is a charge for the church, not the government.

If part of the problem is that “the rich can separate themselves” (Josh’s words), that sounds like envy. Or at a minimum, it stirs envy in others in order to gather political power and momentum.

“Why should someone get a poor education because their parents don’t have enough money for a private school or to move to a better school district?”

That already happens now. And that sounds like an argument against socialized education, not for it. Because our existing educational system, on the whole, sucks.

And your question could be turned right around on “universal health care” - why should someone be stuck with poor healthcare because they don’t have enough money to travel to another country to get the essential diagnoses that they need without having to wait four months?

Again, and I’ll keep going back to this, all of the arguments for socialized education and healthcare can also be applied to food. Why should someone not be able to eat just because they can’t afford it? Does that mean that the answer is socialized groceries?

We do not have a class system in this country. A class system would prevent people in one class from working hard and moving upwards in the system. America is world-renowned for the opportunities it provides anyone. There is a reason why immigrants can come here with practically nothing, work hard, and achieve success. We do not have a class system in this country.

Somewhere along the line, we’ve bought into the idea that it is the government’s job to make sure everyone is taken care of. I think that is the community’s job, but not the government’s. If you want to know the truth, the degree to which the government is taking over charity is the same degree to which citizens have become less charitable. Why should I help someone down the street who needs to eat? Isn’t the government taking care of that? Why should I give my money to an organization that helps kids get essential medical care? Shouldn’t the government take care of that? Government-based charity saps true charity out of the people.

The other reality is that government charity robs the recipient of their humanity. They feel no humility at the receiving of the charity - they feel they are “entitled” to it. They have no motivation to improve their situation, and become charitable themselves.

It’s twisted, and worse, it’s all being exploited by politicians who want to increase their political power. And in the end, the great care you want to provide to everyone, universally, fails them. Long wait lines for essential diagnoses, and people die.

Timely piece from yesterday:
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/129344.html

Sometimes things sound great at a high level - there’s nothing wrong with a “thirst for equality.” But government-mandated solutions twist and distort human behavior. Market conditions always exist and are always effective. Government intervention distorts market conditions, and changes the behavior of the providers and the consumers in negative ways. To make a call for “universal health care” without considering how it would impact the market of health care is how we can convince ourselves that it would be a great idea.

derek. fine. the church should take care of the poor. but don’t you think the church should hold the government accountable. not facilitate it and encourage it.

i mean fine. say the church should provide healthcare to the poor. well aren’t you the church? how come you support a government and big business system that takes advantage of the poor and rewards the rich. not to be rude, but it sounds like there is a bit of a disconnect between your christianity and your politics. or your economics.

if you’re the church, then you shouldn’t be such a proponent of big business and free enterprise. rather you should promote something closer to Acts. which i know is what you practice locally with your community. and i’m certainly not trying to legislate that out to a macro government level. but come on . . . equality, fair treatment, medical care to everyone who needs it, doesn’t have to be only on the church’s agenda. it’s on the agenda of humanity.

which just makes me sad knowing that those typically standing up for the poor and opposing the rich getting richer are usually “lost” people. not the christians and the church.

i just wish you didn’t have so much hang-ups with us all turning into robots, all wearing gray jumpsuits or sackcloth with barcodes on our neck with in government lines waiting on getting the same potatoes and bread for groceries as everyone else.

and could it be that perhaps the reason the public school system has went down hill is because we no longer give it the tax dollars it needs. because we would rather spend money on bombs and military spending. to the tune of over half of our federal budget?

and perhaps education sucks so bad because of privatization. where the “good” teachers (read white and wealthy) can “opt-out” of socialized education. thus causing a flight from the “everybody” to the “individual”. when you lose money, concerned parents, and good teachers, you have nothing but shitty education like we have now.

and perhaps all of the complaints you have about socialized medicine overseas has to do with the fact that our profit-creating health industry pays 10x’s as much as all the other countries with government sponsored health care. so all the good doctors, instead of being indigenous in their own country, building the infrastructure for their own local people and taking care of them because it’s the right thing to do, would rather come over here and drive 10 BMWs and live in a 10 million dollar home. and i wonder what jesus would do? go where the money is, or stay where the poor are?

so again . . . if it’s the job of the church . . . then i don’t know why you’re such a big proponent of supporting such evil. it’d be one thing to be neutral towards it. but you’re actively fighting against equality for the sake of a system that rewards the rich, individualism, and retreatist enclaves. now how christ-like is that?

jesus has to be integrated with your politics and economics at some point. and if not integrated, then he needs to at least subvert them. not actively condone, make excuses for, and fight with.

“Where the ‘good’ teachers (read white and wealthy) can ‘opt-out’ of socialized education.”

In the case of my family, they opted out and didn’t go to private schools. They went to other careers, partially because private schools don’t pay as well as public schools (since I’m not only paying for private school, I’m still involuntarily paying for public school, too). But the point is, the available pool of good teachers is reduced by government intervention.

Regarding integrating Christ with politics. True Christianity doesn’t demand that everyone act as I do. The concept of forcing everyone to pay taxes to support government-based charity is not found in the New Testament. You cannot take the ideas applied to the church in the NT (which are voluntary) and apply them to the government (which are coerced).

My skepticism about corrupt politicians and corrupt governments is my primary motivation. The more power you give to the government, the faster it will become completely corrupt. My main standpoint is to resist anything that gives the government more power, including “universal health care.”

It’s far easier to dethrone a bloated, inefficient, or corrupt corporate giant than it is a corrupt government. The government can use the threat of deadly force against its citizens to force them to comply. That’s the “evil” I am most concerned about, and would fight against.

It’s funny that you accuse me of fighting for a system that rewards the rich. Are you fighting for a system that punishes the rich? Again, it sounds envious. I believe Christ called the rich to give their money away and follow Him. I don’t recall Him ever suggesting others take the money by force.

I am fighting for individualism. Because that is the only way freedom can be a reality - when individuals are free to make choices and act according to those choices. When you put the government in the position of limiting choices, you put the government in the position of limiting freedom. I would no more desire that the government limit choices than I would the church. What’s ironic to me is that you understand the danger of a corrupt institutionalized church, but cannot see the danger of a corrupt, over-powered government. Which is exactly what you’ll get when you entrust all of life’s necessities to government and limit freedom for the sake of equality.

The only way to have true equality and fair treatment is with Christ as the center. The degree to which we don’t have those things is the result of sin in our midst. And the only way to achieve those things without Christ is through domination, oppression, and control. That’s why the theory of socialism works, but in reality it never will.

i never said punish the rich. if by punish you mean take their money unwillingly.

but you are right in saying that it’s not fair for the rich to opt-out of their social contracts with their neighbors so that they can have the best healthcare or education money can buy while everybody else gets left with chicken shit. that’s not envy. it’s called fair & balanced. i thought it was what everyone had a right to. freedom, equality, justice for every race. liberty and justice for all. but i guess only those who have the money get it.

we might as well have the caste system if we are going to have such strong lines between those who have and those who do not.

i do agree with you that socialism works in theory. but not in practice.

that is if you have it from the top down, enforced and maintained by force.

but socialism from the ground up (locally and small) works way better than anything blue cross blue shield or kaiser permanente are offering.

If part of the problem is that “the rich can separate themselves” (Josh’s words), that sounds like envy. Or at a minimum, it stirs envy in others in order to gather political power and momentum.

I am really not sure why you are caught up with the “envy” thing. It is not about envy. I am middle/upper-middle class. Not sure what I would be envy about. When Josh talks about the “separation” it is not about envy, but it is about unequal access to social mobility.

And that sounds like an argument against socialized education, not for it. Because our existing educational system, on the whole, sucks.

Not quite… The education system does a pretty decent job, if not a good job, in high income areas. Much of this has to do with the disparity in teacher salaries, supplies, text books, facilities, etc. Seriously… read Savage Inequalities. It is a very powerful look at the inequality within the public school system.

And the public school system is NOT socialism, as a socialized school system would provide equal educational opportunities to all, regardless of income, wealth, and race.

We do not have a class system in this country. A class system would prevent people in one class from working hard and moving upwards in the system. America is world-renowned for the opportunities it provides anyone.

Not quite. First of all, a class system is different than a caste system. A class system does not mean that there is zero mobility. It means that there are different classes of people that have different opportunities based on their income/wealth.

Second of all, the U.S. is thought to provide opportunities for all, but research says otherwise. There is VERY little social mobility in the U.S. One’s social and economic status is directly related to one’s parent’s social/economic status, and very little mobility is seen within this structure.

If you want to know the truth, the degree to which the government is taking over charity is the same degree to which citizens have become less charitable.

Any evidence for this?

Market conditions always exist and are always effective.

It depends on what you are talking about. Sure they exist. And sure they are effective in doing certain things. But that does not mean that they are effective at assisting the poor. In reality, they tend to be effective at creating greater inequality.

It seems that your biggest argument is that doing something for the poor and about poverty is the church’s responsibility and not the gov’t. But the problem is multi-faceted. For one, churches are not doing it. Two, churches do not have the resources in their current state to provide things like health care for all of those who can’t afford it otherwise. Three, there are systemic problems in this country that lead to great inequality between groups of people. These systemic issues are not something that a local church can solve without reaching beyond its local sphere of influence and getting involved in structures that CAN make systemic change - one of those structures is at the governmental level.

BTW, I meant that “market conditions… are always effective” in the sense that they always affect people’s decisions, even when the government tries to control a market completely. Simply, that even when the government takes complete control of a market, it cannot completely control it. That’s because of market conditions.

Specifically, control the entire healthcare system, and something will get screwed up. In most socialized healthcare systems today, that plays out in long wait times for critical procedures and diagnoses, because market pressures are still affecting the system.

“i never said punish the rich. if by punish you mean take their money unwillingly.”

Yet look at the tax rates… combine social security, medicare, federal income tax, capital gains tax, state income tax, state sales tax, property tax, death tax, etc., etc. Particularly in the top income brackets, it gets very confiscatory. Very punitive. And if you listen to the Democrat’s rhetoric, it is very much meant to stir up envy. And if you follow through with “universal health care,” the cost would be quite staggering and would greatly increase tax rates. While we’re also looking at the very real possibility of increasing Social Security tax rates.

And yes, it sounds great to divert defense funding to causes like this. But there’s very little chance of that ever happening. I think it’s more important to divert defense funding to a “department of everything else” in terms of the military - a branch of the military specially tasked with stabilizing countries after the removal of a brutal dictator and/or regime. In terms of dealing with “great inequality between groups of people,” that’s the best (and most appropriate) role (in my opinion) for the federal government to address inequality.

“but socialism from the ground up (locally and small) works way better than anything blue cross blue shield or kaiser permanente are offering.”

Which is NOT what politicians mean when they say “universal health care.”

And Dave, in poor areas that see an influx of money to improve education, it generally doesn’t work. Countries that use a voucher system, where schools have to compete in order to get funding, perform much better than American schools, particularly in higher grades. You want to give those kids in poor areas a better education? Try vouchers.

I think something similar to vouchers could be implemented for healthcare. But overall, I believe everyone should be treated equally by the government, but that everyone should be free to choose how to obtain the services they need. So like the Fairtax, where each person would be taxed at the same rate and would receive the same rebate (creating the simple progressive nature), I think a similar thing could be applied to education and healthcare, where each taxpayer is provided the same level of assistance for education and healthcare. Then people can use the healthcare provision in a way that makes sense for them (HSA, standard insurance, trips to a clinic only, etc) and competition remains. The same is true for education, where parents could choose how their children would be educated (homeschool, religious private, secular private, government school, etc.).

Where other socialized systems break down is the idea that we have to limit and provision services. And you guys are echoing this - that somehow it is unfair that the “rich” can obtain better services. The thought that it’s unfair for a Canadian, who thinks he might have cancer, to go into Buffalo, NY to get an MRI and have a cancerous tumor removed, all in a matter of weeks, rather than wait four months just to get the initial MRI. During which time he would have likely died or become disabled. To deny him the ability to purchase the services he needs would be unfair. In Canada, private practices are illegal, and it limits people’s options. That’s insane.

I don’t have any solid evidence about my theory about government charity neutering private charity. But that viewpoint seems to hold up given the increase of government charity since Johnson and the “Great Society.” I absolutely believe it from the standpoint of the recipient - the feeling of “entitlement.” You see it in the way people want politicians to pander to them.

By creating/encouraging government charity, you are by definition legislating morality. I believe the government’s capability to legislate morality and charity should be limited.

Churches would have the resources to take care of many of the problems in the world (many of them much more important than healthcare in this country) if they stopped spending money on themselves and started giving it away instead. But we’ve raised a generation that believes that if there is a problem, government is the answer to it. Which is precarious.

combine social security, medicare, federal income tax, capital gains tax, state income tax, state sales tax, property tax, death tax, etc., etc. Particularly in the top income brackets, it gets very confiscatory. Very punitive.

Not sure what you are referring to.
- Social security is a regressive tax - if you make 100,000 you pay the same amount into ss as someone who makes 1 million dollars a year .
- Medicare - everyone pays the same %.
- Capital gains tax - you pay a lower rate on these gains that people in low and middle income brackets.
- State income tax - rates are very similar across the income brackets.
- Sales tax - very regressive, but the poor pay a much larger % of their income in sales taxes than the rich.
- Property tax - for the most part different income brackets pay the same (or similar) rates.
- Death tax - there is no such thing as a death tax, and you know it.

There are a couple of taxes that tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor, but you didn’t list them. The federal income tax and the estate tax.

Churches would have the resources to take care of many of the problems in the world if they stopped spending money on themselves and started giving it away instead.

BTW… I agree with this.

Uh, actually I did list them… look at my list again. Federal income tax is #3 and “death tax” is the last one.

My point about taxes, was, overall, the combinations and complexities of taxes are quite confiscatory.

And of course, the FairTax fixes pretty much all of it, because of the combination of a fixed rate with a fixed rebate. A national implementation wouldn’t force the states to change their tax structure, but in reality, they quickly would. And the simple progression isn’t “unfair” to anyone. It treats everyone the same. And makes it so that the poor pay no taxes at all. Which is not true with the current system.

In the current set of taxes, though, the death tax is the worst with a top rate of 50%. And the most evil since it is taxing those assets twice (because they were already taxed while the person was alive).

I have a personal disgust for the death tax, because in the past couple of years I’ve learned how it contributes to concentration of wealth. If a business is passing through the estate, and neither the estate or the beneficiaries can pay the tax, the business basically has to be sold. Obviously, to someone who is already wealthy. And thus everything becomes more concentrated.

Uh, actually I did list them… look at my list again. Federal income tax is #3 and “death tax” is the last one.

Oops… missed the federal income tax on your list, and I don’t know what the death tax is.

And of course, the FairTax fixes pretty much all of it, because of the combination of a fixed rate with a fixed rebate.

I don’t have to time to get into this right now, but I have addressed this issue before on my blog.

In the current set of taxes, though, the death tax is the worst with a top rate of 50%.

There is no such thing as a death a tax. A death tax would presumably tax death, and that is clearly not the case. It is intellectually dishonest to call if a “death tax.”

What you are referring to is the “estate tax,” which taxes highly values estates (over 2 million dollars) that are handed down in the form of an inheritance after the original owner passes away.

Yes it is called the estate tax. I call it a death tax because it taxes someone after they’re dead. The tax would never apply if they never died. And you’d be surprised how easily a small business can be valued over the minimal requirement, especially because that’s after any other assets the person would have owned.

The tax would never apply if they never died

No… you are wrong. If I am given 3 million dollars tomorrow by my parents, I would get taxes on that money.

You’re right, but the rules are more convoluted than that.

They could pass the maximum to you now without it being taxed, but that would mean every penny that passes through the estate would be taxed, as well. For example, your parents can give you (or any individual) up to $11,000 a year (unless the limit has been raised recently) tax-free. They can give you more than $11,000 a year tax-free, but anything over that accumulates and counts against the exemption of what gets taxed in the estate. At least that’s what I remember. It’s so convoluted, I have a hard time remembering exactly how it works…

But the exemption is based upon the date of death. And the taxes owed are based on assets owned on the date of death. So that’s why I call it the death tax.

So that’s why I call it the death tax.

Well… it seems like you call it the death tax as a rhetorical device used to freak people out about having to pay a tax upon death, and that simply is not the case. It is dishonest.

You pay taxes on inheritances, not on deaths.

As a beneficiary, you do not pay the tax - the estate (which is representing the individual who died) pays the tax. If it taxed the recipient, I’d agree that “inheritance tax” would be a more appropriate term. But it doesn’t tax you based on the amount you receive, it taxes an estate based on how much is passing through it.

I’m not going to deny that “death tax” is rhetorical. The argument you’re making is that it is an inappropriate rhetorical device. But it is undeniably based upon the event of death. Just because a politician wouldn’t want to name it “death tax” doesn’t mean that the term isn’t more descriptive (and understandable to most people) than “estate tax.”

I’d also argue that “estate tax” is rhetorical, because people think that only “rich” people have an “estate.” Likewise for “inheritance.” But you don’t have to be considered rich to be affected by it.

“Social Security” is more rhetorical, IMHO. Because there’s no security in it whatsoever. I’m paying “Social Security” taxes so that someone else gets the money right now. I have no guarantee of anything in the future, and in reality, by the time I’m at retirement age I’m most likely to get nothing. If you want a good example of a dishonest rhetorical device, there’s a perfect example.

Derek,

I’m interested in your position on “the least of these period.” You have coherent arguments that health care and schooling can (and often do) become corrupted when led primarily by the government. And you suggest, I think rightly, that individual charity is often replaced by a government handout. And so you make your arguments accordingly; bashing the government as an institution right and left.

For those interested in universal health care like myself, we’re not as concerned about quick high-end specialized surgeries going down the tubes as we are that the poorest right now quite often don’t even have basic health care services; and if they do have a tragic accident, they’re on the hook for the rest of their lives for the bills. I’m willing to bite the bullet for the sake of our government (the extension of its citizens) looking out for the least of these on a large scale.

And in reality, it’s not as if those in countries with socialized medicine can’t have better insurance; they often supplement it if they’ve got the cash.

The same sort of thinking applies for me with the education system; if anything, it’s clearly the institution in America that shows there definitely IS a class system and there IS NOT an equal starting line of opportunity. Dave makes a good point; read Savage Inequalities for insight into this deep and complex problem. Whereas it’s fairly easy to spot the bias in Kozol’s book (he visits the urban schools in the dead of winter and the suburban schools in the blossoming of spring), the differences in quality of education and life is simply stunning. And the problem isn’t solved by blame-shifting the problem onto the inner-city inhabitants’ laziness or sense of entitlement from government handouts. It’s often related to systemic racism, lack of opportunity, and putrid health conditions all the way down to being born with birth defects because of the pollution of nearby industrial plants that retards one’s ability to gather and retain information to better one’s life.

Please, please, don’t oversimplify issues by snapping off comments like

The charge to care for “the least of these” is a charge for the church, not the government

Whereas the charge to care for the least of these IS a charge specifically for the church, it is also a universal charge to all of humanity to return to their created purpose; and the pursuit of that goal is wonderfully worthy. Capitalism as a system, while it can manage resources better than a socialized system, simply does not look out for the least of these. Period. Because they’re all a bunch of lazy, no-good, entitlement-grabbing parasites

“And in reality, it’s not as if those in countries with socialized medicine can’t have better insurance; they often supplement it if they’ve got the cash.”

Actually, some do. In Canada, it’s illegal to do just that. See the story I linked to above. Those types of positions are inevitable if you buy into the idea that it’s “unfair” that the rich can afford options that the poor can’t.

I don’t have a general problem with the government deciding to provide services. I think our country is better served with a public police force, fire departments, military defense, etc. But it would be insane to say that rich people couldn’t purchase additional protection via private security guards, alarm systems, sprinkler systems, owning weapons, etc. And that these protections are on top of what the government is already providing.

I can see the rationale behind the government wanting to make sure everyone gets a basic education, basic healthcare, etc. My problems are when these systems are universal and comprehensive, and when people are limited in the choices they have when fulfilling their needs for those services. Keeping the essence of the free market alive - people making choices, and maintaining competition - will keep quality higher than intense government regulation. We have real-world examples of this in our lifetimes - the introduction of UPS and FedEx have greatly improved the quality of the USPS.

My other beef is when government treats people differently. I made my points earlier about vouchers, and the way the FairTax was designed.

My real problem with the government providing charity, however, is that it is not sustainable:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.” - Anonymous

Guess where we are in the cycle. I believe we’re on the path from apathy to dependency, while others would say we’re already there.

“The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.” - Thomas Jefferson

I could give you plenty of quotes as to what the government should be limited to, from Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and even Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. But the spirit of them is the same. And none of them include the noble ideals of providing a minimal standard of living for everyone. For the very reason that it is not sustainable for a government to do so.

” . . . purchase additional protection via private security guards, alarm systems, sprinkler systems, owning weapons, etc.”

i am just absolutely confused as to how there can be such a huge disconnect from Jesus on this. i can’t really see jesus demanding the right to privatize everything . . . so that he can get the best of the best in security, alarms, and weapons. not to mention healthcare.

in our current system, jesus wouldn’t even be able to get healthcare!!! he’d be below the poverty level and would be unable to eat, sleep, have security, or have adequate medical aid!!

that’s an extremely odd system to be fighting for. one that wouldn’t allow jesus any “rights” of a normal human.

i mean if the same logic is used that jesus wouldn’t even be allowed to be a pastor or deacon for the SBC, which i’m sure has crossed your mind in your decision to be a part of house fellowships, then i don’t know how you can’t at least consider the possibility that some things should be considered basic rights and not sold.

if you’re a proponent of privatization, at what point do you draw the line between the selling of water, sky, and ocean . . . which is already done. there are some things corporations shouldn’t own. the ability to receive adequate health care at a fair price is one of them.

[...] conversation. It may be too late at this point, but we’re over 30 comments strong back on this post from the weekend. It may be too late or you may not be interested in joining the fray, but a few of us are still [...]

Well, first of all, Jesus would have been healing the sick people who didn’t have healthcare… which given that the early church participated in miraculous healings as well, perhaps a better question is why we don’t have enough faith to do it. (See my brother’s most recent post for more on that one.)

“if you’re a proponent of privatization, at what point do you draw the line between the selling of water, sky, and ocean . . . which is already done. there are some things corporations shouldn’t own. the ability to receive adequate health care at a fair price is one of them.”

That’s quite a jump you make there… nobody owns water, but there is a cost in cleaning it and preparing it for consumption, which we pay money for. That could just as easily be private as public, and in some localities, private companies would probably do better than the government (I’m thinking of Atlanta in particular on this point).

But who is to decide what a fair price is? The person paying for a service (the patient), the person performing the service (the doctor), or a third party (a regulatory agency of the government)? If there’s one inalienable right that we all have, it is the right to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Otherwise, we’re not free - we’re slaves. Your implication is that the government should set the appropriate price for the service a doctor renders. Can you not see how that is a loss of the doctor’s liberty? And how this can lead to supply problems?

The point isn’t about who “owns” healthcare. It is people who provide healthcare, and nobody owns them.

people provide education and nobody owns them! people provide fire departments and nobody owns them!

also . . . water is owned. parts of the sky are owned. microbiology and life is now owned and patented.

watch the corporation.

and jesus wouldn’t have had to do so many miracles if humanity would have just looked out for humanity. i also hardly think the fact that jesus healing the sick should have meant that we should get rid of all hospitals. i also didn’t see jesus slipping the healed a bill when he was finished healing them.

Can you not see how that is a loss of the doctor’s liberty?

Well this will piss some people off, but maybe liberty isn’t the thing we should be looking for.

It is people who provide healthcare, and nobody owns them.

That is not true, and you know it. Who owns the medical technology? Who owns the production of medicine? Who owns the hospitals?

Well, first of all, Jesus would have been healing the sick people who didn’t have healthcare

So if Jesus were alive today, you believe that he would heal EVERY sick person without health care?

“people provide education and nobody owns them! people provide fire departments and nobody owns them!”

These are also generally handled at a local level, not a national one. Though the federal government has been messing around more and more with education (unfortunately, in my view).

In comparison, discussions of “universal health care” are generally national, not local. We could easily have another conversation about the constitutionality of this (as well as a lot of things the federal government does these days).

“Who owns the medical technology? Who owns the production of medicine? Who owns the hospitals?”

Is this going to change under anyone’s “universal health care” plan? And if it did, would it not certainly affect availability?

And Josh, I could rant for awhile on the absurdity of what is patentable these days…

“Well this will piss some people off, but maybe liberty isn’t the thing we should be looking for.”

As long as people can still watch American Idol, buy their lottery tickets, and gawk at celebrities driving drunk and getting married to someone new every other year, they’ll be perfectly happy without liberty.

Unfortunately, the productive members of society - you know, the ones who pay the taxes - would have a problem with it.

I thought I might add to this conversation, but it’s much more fun watching what Josh, Derek, Dave and Nathan throw back at each other in the discussion of the issues. Great stuff guys and very enlightening…I’ve realized I haven’t really given much thought to any of these issues.

In comparison, discussions of “universal health care” are generally national, not local.

So if we talked about “universal health care” on a state level instead of a federal level, would you be okay with it then?

Is this going to change under anyone’s “universal health care” plan? And if it did, would it not certainly affect availability?

Not necessarily (though it could easily affect availability), but I was just pointing out that people do own health care. I would go further and say that while people don’t “own” doctors, people do “own” the access to health care. Of course, this ownership of services is a different kind of ownership than we typically think of, but there is still someone in control of the means of service, and in turn can force others to pay if they want access to that service.

Unfortunately, the productive members of society - you know, the ones who pay the taxes - would have a problem with it.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this. But I would say this - does liberty benefit the greater society? And if it does, how so? And more specifically, how does this “liberty” to do what ever we want to earn and/or spend money impact our call as Christians? And how does it benefit the common good?

I’ve been out of this one for awhile - a few trips to the hospital with my wife’s pre-term labor, and commenting on other people’s blogs is one of the first things to go… This post is getting a little old, but Dave asked me a couple of questions, so I wanted to answer them.

“So if we talked about “universal health care” on a state level instead of a federal level, would you be okay with it then?”

No. And for most of the same reasons… and also because even if it started out local, eventually the federal government would try to control it, like it currently does with education. Primarily, though, because the federal government does not have the authority or mandate to do such a thing. Not that it’s stopped the federal government from putting it’s finger into all sorts of stuff that the constitution doesn’t provide for.

“I don’t necessarily disagree with this. But I would say this - does liberty benefit the greater society? And if it does, how so?”

Yes. Do you know how silly that question sounds? The answer is in the other side of the question. Just like calling capitalism into question, you have to look at the alternatives, which are far worse. The alternatives to liberty all involve oppression and control. If you have another alternative to discuss, feel free to share it.

“And more specifically, how does this “liberty” to do what ever we want to earn and/or spend money impact our call as Christians? And how does it benefit the common good?”

Liberty allows Christians to follow God as they are led by the Spirit, not confined to the version of morality and spirituality that is legislated by the state (which becomes corrupted).

How does liberty benefit the common good? Again, do you realize how silly that question sounds?

Liberty allows each person to live life in the way they see fit to do so. It allows a wide variety of expression, creativity, and ingenuity. The fact that the “poor” in this country have a much higher standard of living compared to the rest of the world is a great example of how liberty benefits the “common good.” But again, the real test comes in assessing the opposite of liberty, which is oppression.

Well, I finally wrote my own defense of the FairTax based on others’ inaccurate criticisms. Enjoy.

You gonna be all right now that Kucinich dropped out?

Back to Obama?

[...] I was voting for Barack. And while I have blogged about my affection and interest for the Senator (here and here) . . . I also haven’t written much here about what I think of the process and the [...]