Hi, this is Tricia.

It is not polite to use obscenities and name calling in a political discourse. Your use of these belittles any argument you might make.

I would point out that every time that anyone questions Obama's tax policy, he simply changes it. See the article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal for the history. I would further point out that "tax cuts" and welfare, or the receipt of money from the government that you never paid in are not the same thing. So, if Obama promises to give you $4,000 or $5,000 per year of someone else's money because you are in college, whether or not you ever paid that money in, amounts to theft at a government level. There is no promise of a free college education, a free house, or free health care in this country. Those are Socialist beliefs. What this country promises is the opportunity for each citizen to work, to support himself, and to have unlimited opportunity, as did Barack.

Barack's proposals for cramdown bankruptcy legislation amounts to the abrogation of contract law in this country and would result in higher interest rates or a further drying up of credit to the populace that actually pays their bills on time and does not look for handouts.

There is no way that Barack can give tax "cuts" to 95% of the population when only something like 55% even pays taxes. What he would give would be a redistribution of money that they did not pay in. A tax cut is not the same as a government handout.

And, yes, is it so unfair to expect that I be allowed to keep what I earn, and be allowed to choose my own charities rather than having Barack take my money against my will and provide to whomever he chooses? I have helped my brothers, my Chilean family, and others, but the more the government takes from me, the less I am able to do that. What is fair about taking the money I earn? How is that an incentive for anyone to work and advance if you are punished when you do so? The incentive that Barack's policies provide is one of moral hazards. Building in a flood zone? Don't want to buy flood insurance? Don't worry, government will pay. Want to have babies outside of marriage and not support them? Don't worry. Government will pay. Want to not buy health insurance so you can buy a Porsche? Don't worry. Government will pay. Want to commit fraud on a loan application and state an income substantially higher than what you earn in order to buy a house that you could never ever ever afford? Go ahead. Don't worry. Government will pay.

The problem is that there is no "government." There is no free lunch. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. All there is is irresponsibility, and the warped belief that taking from someone else just because you want to is OK. It is morally reprehensible.

Finally, right now Obama may say those earning $250,000 or more (per couple - not individual - and Biden said $150,000), but there is absolutely nothing to stop him from changing his definition of "middle class" just as he has been changing his proposed tax policy. He can come for you next, and, yes, I am equating him to the Nazis. And I do believe that experience matters in the presidency. Obama may have enough experience to work with with ACORN on the get out the vote initiative, but that does not make him ready to be president.

Nice chatting with you, and the gang. Have a lovely evening.

I would further point out that "tax cuts" and welfare, or the receipt of money from the government that you never paid in are not the same thing. So, if Obama promises to give you $4,000 or $5,000 per year of someone else's money because you are in college, whether or not you ever paid that money in, amounts to theft at a government level. There is no promise of a free college education, a free house, or free health care in this country. Those are Socialist beliefs. What this country promises is the opportunity for each citizen to work, to support himself, and to have unlimited opportunity, as did Barack.

And, yes, is it so unfair to expect that I be allowed to keep what I earn, and be allowed to choose my own charities rather than having Barack take my money against my will and provide to whomever he chooses? I have helped my brothers, my Chilean family, and others, but the more the government takes from me, the less I am able to do that. What is fair about taking the money I earn?

How is that an incentive for anyone to work and advance if you are punished when you do so?

The incentive that Barack's policies provide is one of moral hazards. Building in a flood zone? Don't want to buy flood insurance? Don't worry, government will pay. Want to have babies outside of marriage and not support them? Don't worry. Government will pay. Want to not buy health insurance so you can buy a Porsche? Don't worry. Government will pay. Want to commit fraud on a loan application and state an income substantially higher than what you earn in order to buy a house that you could never ever ever afford? Go ahead. Don't worry. Government will pay.

The problem is that there is no "government." There is no free lunch. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. All there is is irresponsibility, and the warped belief that taking from someone else just because you want to is OK. It is morally reprehensible.

Finally, right now Obama may say those earning $250,000 or more (per couple - not individual - and Biden said $150,000), but there is absolutely nothing to stop him from changing his definition of "middle class" just as he has been changing his proposed tax policy. He can come for you next, and, yes, I am equating him to the Nazis. And I do believe that experience matters in the presidency.

whether or not you ever paid that money in, amounts to theft at a government level.

There is no promise of a free college education, a free house, or free health care in this country.

Those are Socialist beliefs.

What this country promises is the opportunity for each citizen to work, to support himself, and to have unlimited opportunity, as did Barack.

Barack's proposals for cramdown bankruptcy legislation amounts to the abrogation of contract law in this country and would result in higher interest rates or a further drying up of credit to the populace that actually pays their bills on time and does not look for handouts.

There is no way that Barack can give tax "cuts" to 95% of the population when only something like 55% even pays taxes. What he would give would be a redistribution of money that they did not pay in. A tax cut is not the same as a government handout.

And, yes, is it so unfair to expect that I be allowed to keep what I earn, and be allowed to choose my own charities rather than having Barack take my money against my will and provide to whomever he chooses?

I have helped my brothers, my Chilean family, and others, but the more the government takes from me, the less I am able to do that.

What is fair about taking the money I earn?

How is that an incentive for anyone to work and advance if you are punished when you do so?

The incentive that Barack's policies provide is one of moral hazards. Building in a flood zone? Don't want to buy flood insurance? Don't worry, government will pay. Want to have babies outside of marriage and not support them? Don't worry. Government will pay. Want to not buy health insurance so you can buy a Porsche? Don't worry. Government will pay. Want to commit fraud on a loan application and state an income substantially higher than what you earn in order to buy a house that you could never ever ever afford? Go ahead. Don't worry. Government will pay.

The problem is that there is no "government." There is no free lunch. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. All there is is irresponsibility, and the warped belief that taking from someone else just because you want to is OK. It is morally reprehensible.

Finally, right now Obama may say those earning $250,000 or more (per couple - not individual - and Biden said $150,000), but there is absolutely nothing to stop him from changing his definition of "middle class" just as he has been changing his proposed tax policy.

He can come for you next, and, yes, I am equating him to the Nazis.

And I do believe that experience matters in the presidency. Obama may have enough experience to work with with ACORN on the get out the vote initiative, but that does not make him ready to be president.

Nice chatting with you, and the gang. Have a lovely evening.

What remains unstated, however, is the assumption that the status quo provides an equitable relationship between the work you do and the pay you get. To say this is an unfounded assumption would be quite generous; it seems to be quite easily falsified.

I don't think that the "socialism reduces incentives to work harder" argument presumes this because I think that you mischaracterize the argument as relying on the status-quo fairness of the wage system.

If it does rely on that assumption, it's a poor argument both for the reason you point out and also because the assumption that incentive is related to fairness doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. Instead, incentive is largely related to how much money you make, not productivity: it seems common-sense that people are going to work harder if they're going to make more money. For example, would as many people piss away their educations focusing on sports if being a football star paid $50,000 per year instead of $5,000,000 per year?

So, since incentive is related to the magnitude of pay instead of the relation between pay and productivity, I would argue that correcting the equity relationship between productivity and pay reduces the incentive to move up the payscale. And this sort of makes sense: for an extreme example, if you can get away with extortion with no fear of recrimination, you're more likely to engage in it than if you might get five years in jail.

I submit that there is a better way to rebut the "socialism reduces incentives" argument than to charge that it assumes the natural pay scale is fair. Ask: "so what?" and question the implicit assumption that the natural, inequitable pay scale is the best for society. Instead, insist that there is a correct balance between mandating equal pay for all jobs and letting the invisible hand determine all wages.

That seems like two different ways of saying the same thing. There is no absolute way to determine what is a correct salary for a given job, or a given level of performance at that job. But we can say that people in the big-money club are in a position where they are so far better off than people making typical middle-class wages that there is no way they're actually earning that difference. The argument that they need all this incentive to keep bestowing their bounty upon us is bullshit.

How is that a mischaracterization? McCain supporters believe it is unfair to apply extra taxes to the rich. This automatically implies that the status quo is fair, or at least more fair than the situation if you increase taxes on the rich.

Of course people will work harder if they get paid more money. The question is whether this really works if there is no rational relationship between work and money. Does an investment banker actually work a hundred times harder than, say, a guy who owns a roofing business? If not, then why does he make a hundred times more money? Hell, I think we both know he probably works half as hard.

Of course it reduces the incentive. This makes sense if the existing incentive is irrational, and serves no social purpose whatsoever. Let's look at this another way, using your sports example from before: do you think you would get a significantly higher quality of professional athlete if top sports stars were paid $1 million per year, instead of $15 million? What has the last 20 years of sports athlete salary inflation (far in excess of inflation) gotten us? Are sports an order of magnitude better now? There is a point beyond which extra incentive is meaningless.

That seems like two different ways of saying the same thing. There is no absolute way to determine what is a correct salary for a given job, or a given level of performance at that job. But we can say that people in the big-money club are in a position where they are so far better off than people making typical middle-class wages that there is no way they're actually earning that difference. The argument that they need all this incentive to keep bestowing their bounty upon us is bullshit.

this is the conversation that I told you I would send you. Or the "saying" that I told you I would send you. I would think at this point in your life, you could start learning from your elders who have lived so much longer and experienced so much more.


Nov 5, 2008
Pamela M Land... Good Morning 9:08:22 AM
Sheila J Warre... Good Morning 9:08:36 AM
◄
Did Chris text message you and to say the best candidate won? 9:08:57 AM
Pamela M Land... no, not yet 9:09:04 AM
◄
I am sametiming with Tony Malburg about the election 9:12:18 AM
◄
he is very Republican 9:12:23 AM
Sheila J Warre... So how are you and Tricia doing since McCain didn't win? 9:20:17 AM
Pamela M Land... Tricia sent me an email this morning with the titile "I am so depressed....." 9:21:32 AM
◄
It basically said 9:21:36 AM
◄
The country is going to hell in a handbasket, lead by all the under 30's, social networking, video game playing, obese, helicopter parenting, non work ethic user types. 9:21:54 AM
◄

Nov 5, 2008
9:08:55 AM: Pamela M Land..I am totally bumed at the election results
9:09:01 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: it smelled that way
9:09:07 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: me too . . .but what can you say.
9:09:21 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: at least the Dems didn't get to 60 in the senate
9:09:32 AM: Pamela M Land..Who won as far as Norm Coleman race went?
9:09:35 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: and Franken appears to have been beaten pending the mandatory recount
9:09:47 AM: Pamela M Land..or the Michelle Bachuman?
9:09:49 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: Coleman is up by 700+ votes
9:09:52 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: she won
9:10:02 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: Paulsen beat Madia
9:10:21 AM: Pamela M Land..so, is 60 a magic number in the senate
9:10:23 AM: Pamela M Land..?
9:10:23 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: not sure about clean water amendment BS
9:10:32 AM: Pamela M Land..I voted against that
9:10:41 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: 60 is the number it takes to cut off debate and bring something to a vote.
9:11:23 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: 60 votes are needed for cloture. if they don't have 60 votes, a filibuster by the minority party can kill something from going forward to a vote
9:11:39 AM: Pamela M Land..Gary Mayer is in 7th heaven. He was telling me NOT only do we have a democratic president, but we also now have a majority in both the house and the senate.... Then he went on to say that the last eight years of us getting out of control could now be corrected
9:11:51 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: they also don't have a Veto proof majority
9:12:16 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: we do have the Dems with majorities in both houses as well as the presidency
9:13:15 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: I know Gary was an Obama supporter. I saw the sticker on the back of his SUV
9:13:31 AM: Pamela M Land..my sister sent me an email this morning with the subject line "I am so depressed".... It basically said
9:13:33 AM: Pamela M Land..The country is going to hell in a handbasket, lead by all the under 30's, social networking, video game playing, obese, helicopter parenting, non work ethic user types.
9:14:09 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: the last two years were under Dem control in both the house and senate . . . but the Rep's did not use that fact to their advantage.
9:15:11 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: the meltdown was precipitated due to the Dem's blocking proper regulation of Fannie & Freddie because they were getting sweetheart mortgages on the side and they were getting big donations from the big whigs at both Fannie & Freddie
9:15:42 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: I agree with Tricia's statement about the under 30 crowd.
9:16:19 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: they most likely don't pay any federal taxes yet came out in droves to vote for people to raise the taxes of those who do pay federal taxes
9:17:35 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: I have a feeling that Gary & his wife may see a tax increase despite what Obama said about the $250K threshold. I think the last figure I heard from Joe Biden was $150K which I'm sure Gary & his wife exceed - jointly
9:18:20 AM: Pamela M Land..Gary told me that he knew that he and his wife would be impacted by Obama's tax increases, but they still voted for him.
9:18:35 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: IDIOTS!
9:18:43 AM: Pamela M Land..There was a very lengthly email battle going on back and forth between my sister and my son Chris
9:18:53 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: the sad thing is no body really knows what we're in for with this guy
9:18:54 AM: Pamela M Land..Chris is democrat all the way
9:19:05 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: he's young ...
9:19:07 AM: Pamela M Land..and Tricia is conservative
9:19:10 AM: Pamela M Land..he is 31
9:19:40 AM: Pamela M Land..and they both were very articulate, and went on and on and on, about all the issues
9:19:51 AM: Pamela M Land..and what the canidates stood for.
9:19:53 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: tell him this . . . they say if you're not a liberal when you're, young you have no heart but if you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no brain!
9:20:19 AM: Pamela M Land..that is a good saying
9:21:06 AM: Pamela M Land..I will have to send the argument to you, so you can read it. I have it in my personal email at home. It is actually interesting. But, it is one of those battles you just give up fighting, cause your not going to change anyones mind
9:21:38 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: very true . . . we've become a very divided country from an ideology perspective
9:22:59 AM: Pamela M Land..I'll send myself an email, reminding me to forward the convo to you. Anyhow, Shelia is sametiming me to go have a smoke with her. Talk to you later. Thanks for the reviewing of my CMR
9:23:07 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: ok
9:23:09 AM: Anthony L Malburg/MN/USB: you bet

Good Luck. Prove yourself. For once in your life. You are 31 years old. It is about time.

I still love you. And I always will. But, don't talk to your mother that way. Or your aunt. Talk to me in 20 years about this stuff (if I am still alive). And then I will see your opinion as someone who has actually experienced a life, contributed to charities or the United Way, assisted others when they needed help with your hard earned money, volunteered your time to food shelves or the brush with kindness, or the habitat for humanity. Who the fuc#k are you to judge? I have been doing all of this for year after year after year. And so has my sister. Although, Tricia even does more then I do. It is easy to talk whenever you never put up. Put up or shut up. The reality is that the older generation grew up being taught that they had to work hard. The current generation has not learned this. The current generation expects things to be handed to them. You are turning this into a civil rights issue, when that was never on the table. I believe in defending America and what it stands for. I believe in being free (an obviously you like that as well, based upon your comments). But, it all comes with a price. It is not just given to you. You have what you have, because people like Andy Roberts, or my coworker Grupe, depend our nation. Soooo, even though I understand your need to better everything, u need to get back to the basics. All people need to make the effort. There should be no free rides. You want to reap the benefits,,,, so you need to contribute.

And, once again, I love you.

Mom

I agree. I do not like being sworn at and yelled at electronically. I did notice a big story in the paper today about what the Obamas wore the other day, including Barack's custom-made suit, but nary a mention of the price. Why is that, do you think? The price of Sarah Palin's wardrobe was fodder for the national news for days. Strange.

I do not believe that we will agree on any of these issues. I will, however, respect the office of the president, and not spew obscenities about whoever may be in that office. I will support my country, and myself. That is one area where conservatives and liberals are different.

Have a good day.

You had your 8 years with Bush, and you fuc#ked it up for us. It's the under 30's, social networking, video game playing, obese, helicopter parenting, non work ethic user types turn.

If you think the cost of Obama's acceptance speach suit is somehow comparable to how Palin spent money on her warddrobe/hair/makeup for months, then you're being a bitch just to be a bitch. As far as Sarah Palin spending 150K+ on her wardrobe, that was financed out of tax payers pockes. The majority of whom didn't want that idiot in the white house and had no desire to see THEIR TAX MONEY go to that campaign. You DO remember that little argument? The one where you felt that you should be the ones to decide where your tax money goes to? Yeah. Obama's money was raised by donations. That's a far cry from public financing. So how he spends his money will be decried by those that donated it. Wow. Do you hear that? Yep, it's the sound of NONE OF US GIVING A FUCK. Stop playing the tit for tat game if you're only going to bother comparing apples to oranges. McCain lost (thank god) and Obama won. Deal with it.

I still love you. And I always will. But, don't talk to your mother that way. Or your aunt. Talk to me in 20 years about this stuff (if I am still alive). And then I will see your opinion as someone who has actually experienced a life, contributed to charities or the United Way, assisted others when they needed help with your hard earned money, volunteered your time to food shelves or the brush with kindness, or the habitat for humanity. Who the fuc#k are you to judge? I have been doing all of this for year after year after year. And so has my sister. Although, Tricia even does more then I do. It is easy to talk whenever you never put up. Put up or shut up.

You are turning this into a civil rights issue, when that was never on the table.

I believe in defending America and what it stands for. I believe in being free (an obviously you like that as well, based upon your comments).

But, it all comes with a price. It is not just given to you. You have what you have, because people like Andy Roberts, or my coworker Grupe, depend our nation. Soooo, even though I understand your need to better everything, u need to get back to the basics. All people need to make the effort. There should be no free rides. You want to reap the benefits,,,, so you need to contribute.

I do not believe that we will agree on any of these issues. I will, however, respect the office of the president, and not spew obscenities about whoever may be in that office. I will support my country, and myself. That is one area where conservatives and liberals are different.

The reality is that the older generation grew up being taught that they had to work hard. The current generation has not learned this. The current generation expects things to be handed to them.

You are turning this into a civil rights issue, when that was never on the table. I believe in defending America and what it stands for. I believe in being free (an obviously you like that as well, based upon your comments). But, it all comes with a price.

It is not just given to you. You have what you have, because people like Andy Roberts, or my coworker Grupe, depend our nation.

There should be no free rides. You want to reap the benefits,,,, so you need to contribute.

I think you're missing the point here: the "incentive distortion" argument implicitly presumes that the free market must automatically produce an undistorted, ie- ideal incentive curve. What reason is there for this presumption, especially since we can easily produce examples where it did no such thing?

You can point out that there are families which fell apart because the TypeA man went from $8 million to $4 million salary per year, but there are families which fall apart for all kinds of reasons; it does not mean that the extra $4 million was actually necessary to secure the services of a competent executive in the first place, except for unrestricted competition (and all competitors would be equally affected by increased taxation).

There's a miscommunication here. "Distorted" is an economics term that, as far as I can gather, means "deviates from the free market conditions" -- for example, the tax wedge "distorts" incentives. It's a good example of shitty jargon (and it's what happens when you let idealogues make science). Ultimately, we agree: the free-market undistorted curve is certainly not ideal. I was just taking issue with attacking the "fairness" argument with rebuttals that are more effective against the "incentives" argument.

Except the free market itself is a distortion. Saying it deviates from the freemarket is misleading because it subtly implies the free market is the natural condition, when it requires as much input and work to maintain as most social institutions.

Like I said, it's a poorly-chosen jargon term; you can point out that laissez-faire conditions ultimately produce incentives distorted away from the social ideal until you're blue in the face, and when it comes to taxation economists will still say, "taxes distort incentives". The key is to point out that taxes are necessary to distort incentives back to the social ideal.

I wasn't refering to that- laws against theft distort incentives for stealing. All actions from the government distort incentives.

I was pointing out the free market itself is the result of such distortion. There is no priviledged about the amount of distortion required for it.