Half the respondents of a new poll say taxing the richest Americans by at least 50 percent is a great idea, while more than a third consider Twitter a fad that will likely fade.
Those are among the findings of a new “60 Minutes”-Vanity Fair Poll released Sunday.
Nearly half of the respondents chose Wal-Mart as the institution that best symbolizes America today, leaving in the dust runners-up Google, Microsoft, the NFL, and the banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs.
Dining out was chosen most often by respondents as a luxury they hate sacrificing in these tough economic times. And 5 percent thought the best way to fight obesity among patrons of fast-food chains is to equip each restaurant with scales for them to weigh themselves.
A politician taking bribes is considered by far the greater sin (chosen by 37 percent of the respondents) when stacked against extramarital affairs (just 2 percent).
Check out the poll itself on a variety of topics and vote.
#122 LibertyLover
I didn’t answer it your way. Sorry that upsets you – but I guess I’m just not you. I’m part of the rich tapestry that is humanity.
Whilst amusing as an intellectual exercise, I don’t really know what any of this has to do with the thread.
You seem to want to school me. So come on – whats the lesson here? Perhaps I’m ignorant as well as apparently constantly and indefinitely unhappy. I value happiness highly. Spell it out for me… I’m a fast study.
#123, I didn’t answer it your way. Sorry that upsets you – but I guess I’m just not you. I’m part of the rich tapestry that is humanity.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Avoidance.
Whilst amusing as an intellectual exercise, I don’t really know what any of this has to do with the thread.
You called me greedy. Since you walked down that path, I thought I would follow you.
You seem to want to school me. So come on – whats the lesson here? Perhaps I’m ignorant as well as apparently constantly and indefinitely unhappy. I value happiness highly. Spell it out for me… I’m a fast study.
I can’t until you answer the question truthfully. Did you lie to your wife on your wedding day when you said you would forsake all others?
Freddy, I really don’t see how you can be happy with your balls in your purse. Loser sure seems to have a fixation on men’s balls, women’s purses, and hypotheticals.
Sure you want to “play along?” Next Hypo: your balls are in your purse. Do you go shopping, or stay home and look for an ice pack?
# 124 LibertyLover
I did answer it truthfully. And because I did – asking it again doesn’t change the answer.
To be clear I really don’t know if you’re greedy or not as I don’t know your actions. Based on what you say it doesn’t sound too promising for your fellow man, woman or child, I’ll give you that. Except your wife – she seems to be in high regard in your world view.
Clearly the ‘right’ answer in your mind is ‘I would let the world burn to save to my wife.’ So lets say that’s my view. Sooo… now you are now going to demonstrate how you’re not greedy? Okay – sounds interesting. School away….
#126, So lets say that’s my view.
Let’s not pretend. It is either a fact or it is not. Which is it?
Its a fact.
#128, Why?
#129 LibertyLover
Ok. This is getting pretty dull now.
Why?
Because you are not greedy!
Nicely done sir. Clever stuff, you’ve convinced me.
#130, I didn’t say I wasn’t greedy. I’ve already admitted that.
Why would you sacrifice others for your wife?
#131 LibertyLover
Okay so you admit you are greedy. Glad we cleared that up, and that seems to gel with your previous assertions. You’re obviously fine with that. I’m of the opinion that’s not too great. Certainly unbounded greed is a destructive, ultimately unrewarding and stupid thing.
Why would you sacrifice others for your wife?
Why? Why!?
Well it depends on the circumstance. I don’t claim ‘I would let the world burn to save to my wife.’. (When I said fact – I lied to try and get the gem of wisdom it seemed you were pushing – but that didn’t happen disappointingly).
As I said it depends on circumstance. In some circumstances I would – at least in principal, in others I would not. My wife is capable and able woman, she can think for her self and defend her self. I wouldn’t require her to claim ‘she would let the world burn to save me.’ On asking her she did claim to be prepared to do a lot, which was somewhat of an eyeopener. BUT it was certainly not unbounded.
Anyways claiming and doing are too very different things.
#132, I lied
So, you are a liar. 🙁
TTFN.
#133 LibertyLover
‘So, you are a liar’
Yes. On occasions I partake – like in hypothetical discussions, it can be helpful to get to the root of the issue.
Nothing interesting was revealed here tho unfortunately. Apart from your admission of greed, and your claim of destroying everyone and everything to ‘save’ your wife.
And yes I believe you believe that.
That’s not how I tick – or claim to tick. C’est la vie.
#116 bobbo said,
“But what does liberty mean when one is starving to death or ill?”
1)
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” — Thomas Jefferson
That’s obvious. But what can experience add?
Without exception, the politician who advocates the former is planning to profit from the latter.
You will, of course, feel obliged to try and provide the example that proves me wrong. Please do. I could use a good laugh.
What can we conclude about someone who advocates a cure that they know with absolute certainty will be worse than the disease? Only that the moralizing posture is a fraud.
A moral case for unfreedom can’t be made.
2)
Freedom vs Guaranteed Outcomes
While it is possible for people to be equally free to pursue happiness, it is absurd to expect or demand a narrow range of outcomes regardless of circumstances and especially choices. Should a retarded person have as many patents as a Thomas Edison? Should a homely person have as good a shot at Angelina Jolie as Brad Pitt? (And should we mock Ms Jolie if she likened the policy to slavery?) Should someone who won’t study still get “A”s and graduate? Again, the government that had the power to address these and the thousands of other inequalities that are inherent in life would naturally take the more reasonable course of just ripping off the fools that put it in power. That would be the more humane choice in the long run considering the likely results of trying to eliminate all unequal outcomes.
So why advocate that people should give up a good they can feasibly have for a good that they obviously can’t? It only makes sense if you really don’t like people very much.
3)
Fully respecting liberty is the best way to eliminate poverty and disease. This may have been less obvious in less technologically advanced times, but today it is blindingly obvious that the single biggest cause of poverty in the world today is crime. And by crime I mean government. Firstly, there is war with all the chaos and dislocation that causes the most severe famine. Then there are those governments that either will not allow or simply confiscates food relief. And of course, let’s not forget those who kill the golden goose of prosperity with tyranny. Yes, I mean confiscatory taxes and over-regulation.
Look at out own government. It spend a great deal of its time creating artificial scarcity to profit the few at the expense of the many. The most obvious tools to that end are copyrights and patents. But most regulation is dictated by the regulated industries themselves to eliminate competition etc. Then there is the national debt which is deliberately being jacked up so that future generations will pay all their taxes just to enrich those who conspired to create that debt in the first place.
So knowing this, from direct observation and obvious conclusions, what kind of person would advocate more of the same?
Sure run those taxes up through the roof. It’s done wonders for the places that have tried it.
The amount of money raised by taxing does go down along with major increases in unemployment but don’t let that stop you.
#135–somebody==too late in the thread to engage, but I’ll check back to see if you have continued.
USA is rich enough to have significant levels of liberty WHILE providing reasonable healthcare, food, housing, education to all.
Silly to approach the issue as an either/or proposition.
EDITORS: YES, this thread is bump worthy to repost to the top.
Relying on your good judgment. I remain, sincerely, bobbo.
#137
> USA is rich enough
> to have significant
> levels of liberty
> WHILE providing
> reasonable healthcare,
> food, housing, education
> to all.
First liberty is not a function of wealth. Second, the USA is broke. If you are broke, you don’t go out and spend a bunch of money on fancy health insurance.
#141–Thomas:
First liberty is not a function of wealth. /// Totally dependent on how the issue is phrased.
Second, the USA is broke. /// Again, very definitional.
If you are broke, you don’t go out and spend a bunch of money on fancy health insurance. /// The whole point of health care REFORM is to make it cheaper in its totality. Its casually related that at the same time, universal coverage can also be achieved.
#142
> First liberty is
> not a function
> of wealth. ///
> Totally dependent
> on how the issue
> is phrased.
Your original statement:
> USA is rich enough
> to have significant
> levels of liberty
Given how you phrased it, my statement still stands.
> Second, the
> USA is broke.
> /// Again, very
> definitional
Are you Bill Clinton? Are we going to go down the road of pedantic arguments about the meaning of “is”. We owe more than we make. We are broke. Any money we do have should be used to pay down the debt.
> The whole point
> of health care REFORM
> is to make it cheaper
> in its totality.
There are different types of reform. Adjusting legislation has no direct effect on the government’s cash flow. Putting in a government managed health care system does.
At the end of the day, what the left is proposing is going to cost more even if in the short term (say 10 years). Accept it. The problem is that they then want to raise taxes to pay for it. If anyone actually believed that the additional tax revenue (assuming that tax revenue goes up which it may not) would actually be used to pay for this and only this plan, many might be on board for that. Yet, that isn’t what is going to happen. What is going to happen is what happened with the porkulus bill where only 10-20 cents on every dollar actually went to stimulus.
Let me ask this in closing, suppose we raise taxes to pay for this reform and suppose costs do go down. Are those taxes then going to be repealed? Unlikely.