A Lesson in Taxation

[avaserfi]

Hello Andrew,
could you mention some specific points in the book, that you are suspicious of?
Thanks.

I wish I could remember specific points, but it has been too long since I have read the book. Perhaps I will give it another read if I get a chance, I found the full text online, legally, from the Author's web page.

I do understand everyone sees from their own perspectives; though I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, in regards to the book.

Much of this book contains quotes from government documents. I certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
The author takes to task every president from Lyndon Johnson, right up to, and including both Bush presidents.
So, I didn't see much of a political agenda.

Overall I was not impressed, but, I agree the book is not worth tossing out or completely ignoring. At worst the book helps creates discourse on an important and often ignored subject. Although it is more likely the book aids the discourse through a somewhat more in depth understanding of policy effects on the education system.

I found the book to have a political agenda, but not necessarily towards left/right - see the edited in quote below for more. My main problem stemmed from what I view as a narrow approach to understanding a problem. I realize what the book tried to do, but analyzing policy as a primary means of understanding a pervasive social problem such as the diminishing importance and quality of education within America seems to be short sighted as there are many other possible factors.

edit: I did just look over the forward, in the second sentence found an example of the "ax to grind" I previously mentioned.

"Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying he intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists."

 

[Rickster71]

I wish I could remember specific points, but it has been too long since I have read the book. Perhaps I will give it another read if I get a chance, I found the full text online, legally, from the Author's web page.

I don't blame you, that sucker was over 700 pages.
It's been some time for me as well.
Thanks for that link.

edit: I did just look over the forward, in the second sentence found an example of the "ax to grind" I previously mentioned.

"Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying he intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists."

From what I remember, it drew it's conclusion (the one you've quoted) from U.S. government and United Nation documents.

Don't forget my theory:

A government either exploits a disaster, or creates a disaster, all to create a reaction. The reaction is then exploited, to prime the people for change -- in fact having them begging for it, at which time a "solution" is offered -- the solution the government wants.

In some cases the "solution" is actually not a solution... it appears to be one but actually it will become a problem, which will boil over into a crisis, which then gets a reaction, and then another solution. Which can repeat over and over.

All of this usually escapes detection, because quite simply it can easily be mistaken for an unexpected tragedy, and in the event that a "solution" turns into a problem it's hard to prove as deliberate and can simply be written off as incompetence.

 

[avaserfi]

From what I remember, it drew it's conclusion (the one you've quoted) from U.S. government and United Nation documents.

I realize that, but my point is looking only at such documents is not the whole or even a majority of the picture. Rather, there are many other important (perhaps more so) factors which must be analyzed.

One primary reason for this is that policy intention, implementation and results all have the potential to be drastically different.

Ohh, and if social scientists were really running things, or had any real control over policy, there would be a drastically different criminal "justice" system within this country.

Plus side, I am studying to be a ruler of the world with my education in sociology .

Don't forget my theory:

I haven't. I have been thinking along the same lines for years - since 9/11 and the patriot act. That was the first time I was old enough to realize such action was going on within the government.

 

[craigsub]

There are many factors involved with the shift in educational standards around the world rather than one single act. It is most certainly true that America had a relatively good education system before the 1960s, but for who? There were [are] few individuals who could [can] take advantage of it. The greatest education system in the world is useless if less than one quarter of the population can truly take advantage of it. After the mid 1960s there was a movement where funding was spread out to give more opportunity at greater education. At this point there was no longer enough funding to go around. Of course, the military budget is more important than educating the future leaders of our country .

Additionally, if comparing the American education system to other higher performing systems there are many factors which contribute to the decline in our educational standards besides indoctrination. Take, math class, for example. There is little if any indoctrination (as you use the term) in such courses, but teachers are forced to teach to a test because of ideas like the "no child left behind" act (there were similar acts in many states prior to the national push). Rather than learning students are forced to memorize the "skills" required to pass a test. Many times there are too many of these skills to be mastered in a year so it is just a game that is maintained until the pointless test is passed. Meanwhile, in higher performing countries indoctrination still occurs (this is and has been one primary purpose of education systems - socialization), but there are still expectations of mastery which is now seems to only be expected at the graduate level within our country.



I found this book clearly had an ax to grind taking a narrow view of the issues within America which cause the poor educational system.



There is the implicit, false, assumption within this story that those who work hard are successful and those who do not are not successful. This is not always the case, there are many forms of advantage which some individuals get because of the location born (nationally and internationally), gender, parents etc...

Implicit, false assumptions ? Fascinating. Perhaps you can help out here. Please, answer these simple questions.

1. How does one become successful by not working hard ?

2. Should a person be punished for having parents with the means to help that person get started in life ?

3. Is there something wrong with actually hiring the homeless person rather than giving the person $100 ? Would it not be better for the homeless person to be given the opportunity to earn his or her own money, rather than relying on hoped for handouts from others ?

4. Do you believe that hard work is normally not the precursor to success ?

 

[avaserfi]

1. How does one become successful by not working hard ?

Inheritance would be the most simple answer. That being said, I never made the statement hard work was not correlated to success. I stated that there are large structural barriers for some that do not exist for others.

2. Should a person be punished for having parents with the means to help that person get started in life ?

No, but at the same time I don't believe a person should be punished for the opposite or for being of a specific minority. The barriers I mention in my answer to your first question do not magically appear, they are typically the construction of the dominant group regardless of intent. Such structures punish those who are not of the privileged group.

3. Is there something wrong with actually hiring the homeless person rather than giving the person $100 ? Would it not be better for the homeless person to be given the opportunity to earn his or her own money, rather than relying on hoped for handouts from others ?

No, I would rather hire the homeless person. I agree it would be better. Then again, there is the assumption in this question that the homeless person does not have a (or multiple) job(s) and has the means and or education (relating back to previously mentioned structural barriers for some and not others) to even get a simple, low paying, job that would pay for the basic necessities of life.

4. Do you believe that hard work is normally not the precursor to success ?

I believe hard work is typically a precursor to success. I have and do work my *** of to get what I have, but I had advantaged not accessible by all. Additionally, there are likely people who work harder than me and have less because of these structural (dis)advantages.

These structural incongruities create a severely slanted "meritocracy" within our country. For example, woman politicians have been shown to be as effective as male politicians, but when reaching high power positions must be significantly more qualified than their male counterparts to be successful primarily because of arbitrary normalization of gender attributes. See more thoughts on American meritocracy in this post.

 

[craigsub]

Andrew ... The United States of America was never a "true democracy". It is a representative republic.

You have put your own personal views into this thread, and are also pretty biting with little tidbits such as "false assumption" used to denegrate what my friend emailed to me as a humorous, educational example of differing view points.

As you have personalized this, allow me to respond in kind.

I personally grew up in what was called the "wrong side of the tracks" in rural Pennsylvania.

I worked a full time job to pay for university education (my parents had no money), and after graduating, took a job selling cars because, in 1982, the unemployment rate was 10 percent, and jobs were hard to find.

The dealership I went to work for was owned by a man I had never met. It was in a city about an hour from my home town. I knew no one in this city. It was pretty clear that I would have to work damn hard to become successful. He offered me a desk, a phone and a phone book.

Within a year, I was promoted to manager. That required 80 hour weeks.

When I was 32, I bought my first dealership. After paying a lot of money for this business, the manufacturer tried to force me out of the purchase because I was not a woman nor a minority. I was told by one executive that this franchise would go to a "person of color" or a woman, and that I had no choice in the matter.

The person telling me this was also a "person of color" (his choice of words, not mine), and he took great joy in taunting me as a "white boy who was not going to get his way". Of course, this was always when we were alone at meetings, so he could get away with such reprehensible behavior.

It took 5 years of fighting to keep the business. No government agency lifted a finger to help. Today, my biggest advocate working for this manufacturer is an African-American (he refers to himself as a black dude). We are the best of friends, including getting in several rounds of golf each year.

In our stores, we now have 100-110 employees. Had I listened to the people at this company who wanted me to go away, those employees would be out of work today. I know this, because their "hand-picked" dealer was granted a franchise in another market, only to go bankrupt within a year.

I have seen countless examples of people rising from nothing to achieve success.

I have seen other countless examples of those getting an inheritance losing it all. An inheritance does not mean one is successful any more than winning the lottery makes one successful. Success, IMO, is taking one's own talents and making the best of those talents.

There has never been a country in the history of the world in which the outcome of each person's life was guaranteed to be successful. There will always be people who want us to succeed, and there will always be people who want to see to our failure, if we let them.

All we can ask for is a fighting chance to make a success of our own lives.

The United States was not envisioned as a place which would guarantee outcomes. It was envisioned as a place in which people could realize freedom, and also one's dreams.

Yes, we had slavery. On the other hand, many thousands of US citizens fought (and died) for the end of slavery.

Yes, we have had civil rights issues. But we have also had people step up to address those issues.

When I was told that I was not acceptable to own a business for which I paid because I had the wrong skin color (white), it was a source of frustration, but it was something worth fighting against.

Freedom does not mean there will be no wrongs in one's society.

Freedom does not guarantee success.

Freedom DOES mean that one does not need to bow down to these wrongs and quit. It means one can fight back against those who discriminate. It means that hard work will ultimately end in one's being successful, but it also allows that many will fail before achieving success.

Freedom does mean that we are allowed to pass on to our children and grandchildren the fruits of our labor, should we choose to do so.

It also affords the opportunity for those who don't have parents of means the chance to achieve success.

I am grateful to live in a country in which, even though I was born rather poor, I was not told I had to STAY poor.

 

[avaserfi]

Andrew ... The United States of America was never a "true democracy". It is a representative republic.

If you would like to argue over semantics, so be it. The United States is not and has never been a true representative republic if the goal (which it never was) was to be representative of the whole or even majority of the population.

You have put your own personal views into this thread, and are also pretty biting with little tidbits such as "false assumption" used to denegrate what my friend emailed to me as a humorous, educational example of differing view points.

I am not the only one who has espoused their personal views within this thread. The story you offered was an example of your views. My point was that the story while simple and easy is not an accurate portrayal of the differing view points or the situation as a whole.

As you have personalized this, allow me to respond in kind.

...


I have seen countless examples of people rising from nothing to achieve success.

Certainly there are many stories of success that can be cited. My parents are an example as well.

I have seen other countless examples of those getting an inheritance losing it all. An inheritance does not mean one is successful any more than winning the lottery makes one successful. Success, IMO, is taking one's own talents and making the best of those talents.

The point was certain aspects will make it far easier or possible for some to be successful than others. Why, in general, should those who are lucky enough to be born white men have significantly more advantage in becoming successful than say a black female?

All we can ask for is a fighting chance to make a success of our own lives.

Indeed and because of the structure of society there are those with a fighting chance and those without and some in between. The majority falling in the latter two categories.

To be frank I have no interest in debating or discussing the rhetoric of freedom. As far as I am concerned many in this country are not truly "free" within the structure of this country. Then again, it is clear we have differing views that are not likely to be changed. I am perfectly fine leaving it at that.

 

[lsiberian]

Thanks Dave, for your usual breath of fresh air.

I don't really blame others here for the way they feel about socialism, it isn't really their fault.
They've been indoctrinated. From grammar school on up to college, socialism is subtlety taught.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) was a major shift. It changed our system of education -- which, up until 1960, was the best in the world.

Please allow me to recommend, yet another book:
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - By Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education.

Much of this book contains quotes from government documents detailing the real purposes of American education:
"To reject high academic standards in favor of OBE/ISO 1400/90006 egalitarianism;" - " To reject truth and absolutes in favor of tolerance, situational ethics and consensus;" "To reject American values in favor of internationalist values"

Teachers are instructed how to instill humanistic (no right/no wrong) values in the K-3 students. At the text's suggestion they were encouraged to take little tots for walks in town during which he/she would point out big and small houses, asking the little tots who they thought lived in the houses. Poor or Rich? "What do you think they eat in the big house?...in the little house?" Slowly sowing the seeds of class warfare.

Kids aren't being educated, they are being indoctrinated, and that explains why U. S. twelfth graders scored below the international average, and are among the lowest of the 21 Industrial Nations in both mathematics and science general knowledge in the final year of secondary school. Even though the U.S. spends the most per student.

Did you know that only kids that pass a test get to be in the Final Year of Secondary school in many of those nations? Other kids are sent to Trade Schools and have no chance to go to college period.

This ignorance is the source of the very poorly conceived no child left behind bill. The biggest problem with our system according to educators i've talked to is they can't decide what they want the schools to be. A daycare, a job training program, etc.

Wouldn't productivity and global contributions a superior measure the effectiveness of an education system?

I think the biggest problem is you have lawyers deciding things educators should be deciding.

 

[lsiberian]

Though I know there are sharp disagreements. I think the restraint and intelligence put into each post is refreshing. I wish more people were reasonable like this on the internet.

While we may disagree at least no one is being stupid about it. And biting words are very mild compared to other places. Still I think there are valid lessons to learn from this story. And there are things in it that are unrealistic.

I would assert most people want to work hard using their talents and be succesful contributors to the world. It's easy to pick on a class based off a few bad fish, but the reality is most people in every area i've met really do want to contribute to bettering the world. We must tap into this to better our world.

 

[craigsub]

If you would like to argue over semantics, so be it. The United States is not and has never been a true representative republic if the goal (which it never was) was to be representative of the whole or even majority of the population.

I am curious, which United States citizens are currently not a part of our representative republic that you think should be added to the population which is currently a part of our representative republic ?

I am not the only one who has espoused their personal views within this thread. The story you offered was an example of your views. My point was that the story while simple and easy is not an accurate portrayal of the differing view points or the situation as a whole.

I know that sometimes people get angry over the truth, but the truth of the matter is all I did was to copy/paste an email which was sent by a friend. I offered no opinion regarding my views of the matter. It was not authored, nor endorsed, by me.

Certainly there are many stories of success that can be cited. My parents are an example as well.

Good for them.

The point was certain aspects will make it far easier or possible for some to be successful than others. Why, in general, should those who are lucky enough to be born white men have significantly more advantage in becoming successful than say a black female?

Indeed and because of the structure of society there are those with a fighting chance and those without and some in between. The majority falling in the latter two categories.

To be frank I have no interest in debating or discussing the rhetoric of freedom. As far as I am concerned many in this country are not truly "free" within the structure of this country. Then again, it is clear we have differing views that are not likely to be changed. I am perfectly fine leaving it at that.

This is true, I doubt we would agree on much.

 

[avaserfi]

I am curious, which United States citizens are currently not a part of our representative republic that you think should be added to the population which is currently a part of our representative republic ?

Physically being a part of the representative republic and actually being represented equally are two different things. For example, "all men [what about woman?] are created equal" is part of the constitution. Yet, how were black individuals represented within the republic initially? Certainly, their bodies were within the physical region, but their interests were not a concern.

With the current state of lobbyists in Washington I think it is very hard for anyone to argue successfully that there are not groups in this country who get far more attention relative to actual prevalence in the population simply due to financial resources. Of course, the argument could be made that the groups whom are successful are the ones that work the hardest, but this logic does not allow for the existing structural oppression of marginalized people. Certainly the marginalization is not as bad as it was during the time of slavery, but it does exist in large forms.

I know that sometimes people get angry over the truth, but the truth of the matter is all I did was to copy/paste an email which was sent by a friend. I offered no opinion regarding my views of the matter. It was not authored, nor endorsed, by me.

Angry? I am not sure what reading of my statements you are taking, but I no anger was created in the typing of any of my messages. Certainly, the statement alone was not endorsed by you, but your use of the "thank you" function and posts within the thread as a whole imply some endorsement the amount of which is unknown.

I think it is also important to note you specifically asked me for my views in post 64 through the phrasing/type of some of the questions asked. Certainly, I see no issue with this, but dwelling on the issue of personal/not is useless as far as I am concerned unless a discussion of the roots of such beliefs are to be had. That again is my personal opinion.

 

[Adam]

...all I did was to copy/paste an email which was sent by a friend. I offered no opinion regarding my views of the matter. It was not authored, nor endorsed, by me.

You may want to mention explicitly in the future that the contents of your posts do not reflect your views, if that is the case. It's easy for people to get the idea that you agree with something that you decide to post under your name.

I'm not calling you a liar...just offering a suggestion for the future.

 

[craigsub]

Physically being a part of the representative republic and actually being represented equally are two different things. For example, "all men [what about woman?] are created equal" is part of the constitution. Yet, how were black individuals represented within the republic initially? Certainly, their bodies were within the physical region, but their interests were not a concern.

With the current state of lobbyists in Washington I think it is very hard for anyone to argue successfully that there are not groups in this country who get far more attention relative to actual prevalence in the population simply due to financial resources. Of course, the argument could be made that the groups whom are successful are the ones that work the hardest, but this logic does not allow for the existing structural oppression of marginalized people. Certainly the marginalization is not as bad as it was during the time of slavery, but it does exist in large forms.

You do realize there was not even an attempt at answering the question as it was asked, don't you ?

Angry? I am not sure what reading of my statements you are taking, but I no anger was created in the typing of any of my messages. Certainly, the statement alone was not endorsed by you, but your use of the "thank you" function and posts within the thread as a whole imply some endorsement the amount of which is unknown.

I think it is also important to note you specifically asked me for my views in post 64 through the phrasing/type of some of the questions asked. Certainly, I see no issue with this, but dwelling on the issue of personal/not is useless as far as I am concerned unless a discussion of the roots of such beliefs are to be had. That again is my personal opinion.

Once again, you are making assumptions. I said sometimes people get angry over the truth, and that the truth was that I merely copied and pasted an email. Your opinion, dear avaserfi, is quite in error.

 

[craigsub]

You may want to mention explicitly in the future that the contents of your posts do not reflect your views, if that is the case. It's easy for people to get the idea that you agree with something that you decide to post under your name.

I'm not calling you a liar...just offering a suggestion for the future.

You may want to read the post in question again, as it was quite clearly said that it was an email sent to me from a friend:

This was emailed to me by a friend of mine who is also a Green Beret:

Most intelligent people can read that and understand that it was sent to me by a friend, and that the words were not mine. Most intelligent people would also not automatically assume this represented my personal view. In my experience, intelligent people ask for clarification and seek answers rather than assuming an answer exists based on very little information being available.

I am not calling you lacking in intelligence...just offering a suggestion for the future.

 

[avaserfi]

You do realize there was not even an attempt at answering the question as it was asked, don't you ?

The question was answered fully as far as I am concerned. Perhaps I did not spoon feed you exactly what you were looking for, but that was not my prerogative. To use your language: "intelligent" people can read into what is implied and find what is said within literary devices.

If you are interested in seeking out information on specific marginalized groups within America who are not truly represented in our republic I can refer you to relevant scientific literature.

Once again, you are making assumptions. I said sometimes people get angry over the truth, and that the truth was that I merely copied and pasted an email. Your opinion, dear avaserfi, is quite in error.

When something one writes is quoted and a reply follows this is typically a direct response within an environment such as this. Hence, it was implied that I was angry by your structure. Indeed, you did not say "avaserfi, you are angry" directly, but this does not change the fact that your posts are double hermeneutics which are easily misconstrued due to their sloppy structure. This tactic seems to be used to distract from the issues at hand. Thus, I can see you have no interest in actually discussing the topic at hand, rather you are ignoring the points made and poking fun. Due to this I have no reason or interest in continued discussion with you.

 

[craigsub]

The question was answered fully as far as I am concerned. Perhaps I did not spoon feed you exactly what you were looking for, but that was not my prerogative. To use your language: "intelligent" people can read into what is implied and find what is said within literary devices.

If you are interested in seeking out information on specific marginalized groups within America who are not truly represented in our republic I can refer you to relevant scientific literature.



When something one writes is quoted and a reply follows this is typically a direct response within an environment such as this. Hence, it was implied that I was angry by your structure. Indeed, you did not say "avaserfi, you are angry" directly, but this does not change the fact that your posts are double hermeneutics which are easily misconstrued due to their sloppy structure. This tactic seems to be used to distract from the issues at hand. Thus, I can see you have no interest in actually discussing the topic at hand, rather you are ignoring the points made and poking fun. Due to this I have no reason or interest in continued discussion with you.

I was hoping to have an intelligent and friendly conversation with you on matters of what each of us does believe.

The exchange between us began when you referred to my copy/paste of a friend's email as a false assumption.

The only assumption made was on your part.

Perhaps someday, over beers, this conversation will happen.

Peace.

 

[rnatalli]

If you want to see how European socialism works without Denmark's Saudi-style wealth, look towards Italy. Chaotic politics and economics and getting poorer every day.

Spoken like someone who has probably only visited Italy at some point in his life. As an Italian citizen, let me educate you a little. Italy is one of the most conservative governments in Europe, but does have some good social programs. It's run almost entirely by Berlusconi (who I voted against BTW) who is as far right as Bush. Italy runs even with no government which is virtually impossible here in the US as Americans would eat each other. Italians live a far more relaxed life style and live longer lives thanks to their healthcare system ranked 2nd in the world by the WHO. Many legal systems in the world are based on the Roman system conceived 2,000 years ago. Italians were drinking wine and building magnificent structures before much of the world knew how to find their own feet.

Before you bash a country, please educate yourself a little. But if you want to simply say Italy sucks, then blame the recent conservatism for it.

 

[Adam]

You may want to read the post in question again, as it was quite clearly said that it was an email sent to me from a friend:

You might want to read my post again. I didn't say people would think that you wrote it - I said that:

It's easy for people to get the idea that you agree with something that you decide to post under your name.

I wasn't trying to be a jerk, man. You don't need to get all snide with me.

 

[Shock]

Now is when i'm normally give Adam a big ol' red chicklet signed "craigsub" and watch the hilarity ensue.

 

[Adam]

Now is when i'm normally give Adam a big ol' red chicklet signed "craigsub" and watch the hilarity ensue.

Yours would be worth more, so I'd know it wasn't him. Then I'd start looking. Who could it be? Who could it be? Oh, wait - Shock's signature says that he gave it to me.