Are We Asking the Right Questions, Wisconsin?
Are we asking the right questions?
Are we? As we throw insults and “insight”; data, contradicting data, and party-line rhetoric around, with, toward, and against one another, are we even asking the right questions? I don’t think so. I’ve been booed down, attacked, or whatever else for trying to explain why I advocate that Heidegger – for each and every one of us - is more relevant to our lives today than 99.+% believe possible. Not only are his ideas relevant and timely, but they are pathways along which we can move; they un-conceal a thought-process and present ideas by which we can live, ideas that can help us approach this election, the national one, the issues regarding sustainability, women’s rights, quite simply – how to live.
I confess that I am a believer in his approach to the creative power of “the word” – just imagine: “Language is the house of Being. In this house man dwells.” A number of you can hear the echoes of St. John, in his Gnostic hymn: “The Word was made Flesh.” Heidegger’s renewal of St. John’s statement affirms that “Language creates world.” The phrase is not metaphoric; it is literal; and, as such, it IS. These gnomic statements quickly alert us, bring into focus the everyday Language in which we are immersed, in which we now abide. Yet we walk away from that-which-is-clear. How many of us consciously create the world we desire with the language of the day?
Have we not the same again with the insistent question: “Was Heisst Denken?” what does it mean to think? Let alone what does H mean, what are his 4 levels of looking at the question? Or, is it any easier to wrestle with his straight-forward, allegational assertion: “what is most thought-provoking in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking.” Heidegger was able to see that language has been deadened metaphorically. As speakers we hear but no longer comprehend. Language no longer brings the thing into presence; today, language is code, simplified, nullified of its essence and insight. Instead it is a short-hand, especially in the world of politics and governing/power. We fail ourselves unless the code is deconstructed, unpacked, and revivified. Lewis Carol played with language to the amusement and edification of millions. We need a poet. For us language is being tending ineffectually and moving towards its own demise - at which point anything could mean everything and everything will mean anything; and, it all will mean nothing.
Why am I trying to bring Heidegger or a poet or Lewis Carol into a patch conversation? It isn’t because I think I’m better or that I’m any smarter than anyone here; I don’t have THE answer to any one question. But I do think we are on a collision course with Freedom – with a capital ‘F’; and, that is why I am trying to answer a question recently asked in the writing of this piece. Now the question came from another patch contributor, one whom I believe holds rational and balanced attitudes as evidenced by his thoughtful (usually) posts. He asked me why I find myself so invested in how we look at this election. It’s easy, Jay. I don’t think we see what remains concealed, what is hidden and not brought into the clearing. In other words, something strikes me as just not right, certainly not kosher, cricket, nor allowable if we just pay closer attention.
I admit: There certainly are those among this intended audience who don’t think so or don’t care seemingly because they believe that this doesn’t affect them - they stand above the rest, above you and me. Now me, I’m “kinda” typical in Patch-ville, USA: I’m a lifelong Republican. Grew up in the Bay. Believe in God. Received a good education. Done ok at times, other times not. Been a sinner and a saint. But this election really disturbs me at my core: something is rotten in Denmark! I think the spotlight has been shone on the wrong openings, the wrong clearings. In fact, I think we are looking at the wrong clearings altogether; and, I think we are not asking the right questions. Moreover, I think we’re selling ourselves short.
One thing that worried Heidegger, one of his pet peeves with the whole of western European man, the educated masses in particular, is the placid, unthinking existence of those of us just carried along by the flow: “…we are still not thinking.” Why are we not asking the deeper questions, the ones that do need to be asked and answered; and, if we are, are we unreservedly attending to the answers; are we then listening authentically, openly to what is in front of us; or, are we already on to the next fleeting thought? Moving away from that which needs to be thought, a movement natural to all humans.
Personally, I believe that we are not asking the right question(s). And, in not asking the right one, or set of questions, we are failing ourselves; and we are failing the generations to follow. I think the most “thought-provoking” elements of the current political situation are being shifted from view, sometimes hidden behind a veil that is embroidered using the vocabulary threads of the “words that work” weavers, who today embroider with the same thread sold by those hucksters, or ones identical to, those who brought ridicule to a certain hapless ruler, in the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” In this case the puppeteer brushing and dyeing the wool is a Republican and Tea Party adviser, the social researcher, Dr. Frank I. Luntz. He’s their “words-smith,” the guy distorting the facts and tricking us with clever phrases.
This election, the one here in Wisconsin as well as the National one, is not about “job creation.” It is about the nature of government. It is about ‘the Good’, about ‘Justice’ about ‘Truth’: the stuff that really matters: society, providing for one another. For me, this election - and, well, it really is the most important election of my life - it proposes to destroy our beloved democratic republic and the ideals upon which our country, our nation, was founded with a verbal misprision of ideas. Concept distortion is all around us and no one is seeing it. One party has become the party of only a few, only some of the people. That is not the American way. If we choose the side pretending to follow this Nation’s founding principles, we will like lemmings following a disembodied the Voice, fall off the cliff and drop into a world ruled by a plutocratic oligarchy, which will have won control of everyone’s life.
For me today, I am trying to detoxify myself from the bitter ads being shot across our bows. But I did hear one statement that I believe should apply more liberally to both sides. Yes, it was made by the President. Mr. Obama was quoted while speaking from the G-8 Summit: “My job is to take into account everyone not just some” – not just the elite few. Why would any one of us follow a path that excludes and only looks out for the few, for some? And why would, or are, we only looking out for the few, for some? By the way: are YOU one of “the some”? Are you comfortable with the underlying belief system that both parties have in fact? (Not what the patcher crowd pretends, by the way). Have you asked all the questions that need to be answered? What questions don’t you want answered for fear of what has been concealed? Sorry if this got a little too ethereal. I hope that it “touches ground” for more than a few careful readers. For me, though, I suppose my conclusion is simple: ask the next question and the one after that and… In other words, whether you like Heidegger’s phrase “Questioning is the piety of thought” or prefer the words of John Fowles’ Magus, “A Question is a form of life; every answer a form of death.” Let’s make sure we are asking the right questions before we sink the ship of state.
CowDung
8:31 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
"Heidegger", "plutocratic oligarchy", "lifelong Republican", "think", "ask the 'right' questions"...
How many times can you write the same article?
Bob McBride
10:24 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Thats the genius of it, CD. He only writes it once and then rearranges it as necessary to freshen it up a bit. He works for the university system, where professors have made whole careers out of doing exactly the same thing year after year.
Nick Poulos
9:29 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
CD; with a nom d plum like that, your comments is fitting. I will write and speak until you either read it and get it! or just admit that you and your own are those pushing to exclude and damage the majority through self-centeredness, uncaring, lack of morals, ethics based upon a barnyard, etc....
CowDung
10:37 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Nick:
Just do the Molly Bloom and say 'yes' to Walker's reforms. Let's end the partisan paralysis being caused by the endless cycle of recall elections...
Nick Poulos
6:51 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
I know that Joyce wouldn't tip his hat to you for culling that reference, but glad you remember, hope you enjoyed Ulysses.
But never would I campaign for Walker's staying any longer than humanly possible. Walker's reforms presage a near-fascistic disregard for our democratic republic. Additionally, anyone paying attention, any one must see him as a dissembler, if not completely dishonest or even worse. I am stunned that so few people can admit that the core of this election, and of the national election, is whether we maintain a democratic republic or become a photo in Webster's next to (out-and-out) "plutocratic oligarchy." At least patchville, and its readers based upon comments flying in space, appears dominated by an ethics that truly has gone from knowing what "True North"is, with true-Christian values, to hiding behind secularism at its self-centered worst, Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" nonsense. The world will be worse off; Wisconsin will be worse off; the Nation will be worse off, if Walker is not defeated, and if Obama is not re-elected based upon the prevalent preachings of the Tea Party and what now claims it is the"Republican" Party: they are the pretenders, and they are fooling you, unless you are one of them. We do need to revert ethically to a more Augustinian/Aristotelian mores. For some it will be an entirely new ethical and moral framework; for those more human-minded, it will be the tried, true and just one.
CowDung
8:20 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Methinks you are prone to exaggeration.
Sunrocket
10:12 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Do liberals just keep thinking if they say the same thing over and over again it will be? You and yours keep saying things like "the majority" and Walker has divided the State when numbers really show that is not true? Let's face it - this recall is just one big hissy fit that the left didn't win and isn't going to win and the left is running out of excuses. Please tell me how the state and the nation will be better off? The nation is BROKE, what about that don't you understand? Walker balanced the budget but all you guys can say he is a liar and unethical and dishonest and a dissembler - huh? And Doyle wasn't? Obama isn't? Obama talks about the rich and taxes and blah blah blah and then throws huge parties and Michelle flies all over the place on the public dime. Who do you guy''s think you are kidding? Having a temper tantrum over Walker is just trying to hide the real issue at core and that is Obama has been one huge mistake and has done squat for this country but let's blame it all on Walker. Pathetic.
Nick Poulos
12:45 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
@CowDung; methinks I cannot stress it enough.
@Sunrocket: i think you're wrong.
But this really was a post directed to @Jay Sykes, so keep drinking the Kool-Aid and , like Nero, watch while the world goes up in flames
CowDung
12:53 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Apparently. Hence the repeated postings of the same thing...
To me, you are no different than the long line of people that came up to speak after Walker's budget speech. They all spoke (some with tears in their eyes) of "draconian" cuts, doubling of class sizes and mass teacher layoffs. Predictions of gloom and doom, the sky is falling, etc. that not only failed to materialize, but are no longer even brought up as issues in the recall election.
Sunrocket
8:06 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Mr. Poulos, the world will not be going up in flames, as a matter of fact, as soon as this unnecessary and expensive recall is over, and Mr. Walker continues as Governor I expect nothing but good things to happen to our state. Perhaps after that, the delusional left that is the one drinking the kool aid will finally realize what a dunce Tom Barrett is. What is really disturbing is that you all that are suffering from Walker derangement syndrome would have absolutely anyone but him run the state and to do that you are inflicting Barrett on us who is the one that will really turn this state upside down on it's head. He is doing such a fabulous job with Milwaukee, isn't he? I'm waiting for him to try to blame the misreporting of the level of crimes just reported out of the city on Walker - hmmmm, how long with it take? You dems just cannot except that Walker has done the right thing by the state and would rather have a world class temper tantrum worthy of a 3 year old in need of a nap just so you are right.
Greg
8:12 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Sunny, No need to wait: http://portwashington-wi.patch.com/articles/barrett-walker-is-attacking-cops-by-questioning-milwaukee-crime-stats
Greg
2:53 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
My question is the same as always. What is Barrett's plan for Wisconsin? It must not be the "Right Question" because I never get an answer.
If “Language is the house of Being. In this house man dwells.”, should we not ask, Are we asking the correct questions?
Nick Poulos
10:03 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Greg, you question is fair: Ask Barrett. I would hope to be, or become, vox clamans ex deserto.
It's a matter of shining the spotlight on the clearing and then changing perspective and asking another question.
"Now as to the Language is the House of Being." That is as deep and as simple as the metaphors and language of our everyday quotidian lives is what creates in a literal sense the world in which we dwell.
@ Sunrocket: You are missing the point, and deflecting the thesis to some data which is meaningless. Or said a slightly different way: you are moving the spotlight away from and ignoring the only question that drives this theory of issues - what form of government do you seek? (And Ps. the Republicans still have not strategy: party of "no!"): are we willing to lose our democratic republic and allow it to be in living color, a plutocratic oligarchy? If you believe, just say you believe that the United States only belongs to the rich and the few. That isn't an ethics I believe is for the Good. Instead, i prefer this definition of "ethics," from Tom Morris's book (he used to be at Notre Dame) "If Aristotle Ran GM": he subtitled "it the new soul of business" (obviously the soul has gone out of this society and out of business based upon the evidence of patchers's comments & you must think that's ok)."Ethics,"he asserts,"is all about Spiritually Healthy People In Socially Harmonious Relationships." That doesn't seem to be a spirit alive in the US in 2012, n'est-ce pas?
CowDung
9:57 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Nick:
Are you still claiming that the Republicans are the 'party of "no"'? It seems to me that those behind the recalls would be the ones shouting "no"...
Sunrocket
10:41 pm on Thursday, May 24, 2012
Mr. Poulos, sorry I only know English so your quotes are meaningless to me. I am not rich and I guess I am not very schooled in your type of English. College was a long time ago for me and I don't remember all the literature I had to read. What I expect from my government is to allow me to make my own choices be it health care, to the kind of car I drive and when and where I donate my money. I am all for helping those in true need, those unable to help themselves do to ill health, age and disability. I do not support continually aiding and abetting those that choose to live all the public dole for no other reason that they can. I know plenty of people that came from nothing, were schooled at MPS and have made plenty of themselves so I am not going to blame the school system, I am blaming the enablers. I have a voice when it comes to my employment, I do not need a union to speak for me. It makes no sense to me to pay someone else to go to bat for me when I am perfectly capable of doing it myself. If I come up strikes too often, I switch teams. I do not think of the rich as evil. From my vantage point of several jobs, I see all the good that the rich can do through charity and mentoring and they do plenty. I see nothing wrong with tax incentives if it brings work to the state. If the Koch brothers want to spend all their money for Walker - that's their right let them do it. I prefer a proactive governor, which is what Walker is. Barrett is a talking head.
Nick Poulos
10:17 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
@Sunrocket: your comments about learning are somewhat troublesome, since I believe we all must continue to learn throughout life. But what most troubles me is that you are admitting then that you no longer want the type of government that has defined this nation: you want to give up a democratic republic and hope that the plutocracy won't end up completely fascistic:
Now, lest anyone say that I am awfulizing: Milwaukee was the home in the US for the Bund - you know, the people who thought Adolf Hitler was a savior.And it was the leading German families of this city who supported and led the Bund. Is there really that much difference between walker's approach to decision making and segregation. Barrett is the guy who can unify the state. Is Barrett a glamor guy or the most photogenic, maybe not. But even the great Bill Proxmire lost a few times before he found his greatness. Barrett's greatness is before him now.
Sunrocket
12:39 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
I'm confused about my comments about learning - I am a continually learner and didn't say otherwise in my post with the exception of not remembering literature I read in college so I am not sure what you mean about that.
I come from strong German stock that did immigrate here and trust me, none of them thought Hitler was a savior. I also do not think Barrett is our savior, anything but and his looks have nothing to do with it! Please tell me what this guy's platform is? Can anyone tell me that? His only platform is Walker bashing, this week it is the hard working police that entered the level of crimes incorrectly , last week it was the war on women, the week before it was unemployment or act 10 - which he actually used to balanced the city budget, yet I hear nothing about what this man is going to do for our state. He's done squat for the city why should I expect he is going to do anything for the state? 2 times already people have not had the faith in him to elect him to Governor, that alone should say something.
Nick Poulos
10:22 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
@CD; yes. The Republicans continue to be "the party of 'No!'"
That would be no ideas, no strategy, no clear plan to protect the democratic republic that is the crux and heart of the United States. Certainly they are not the party of investment in America, in sustainability, in women's rights, in the inclusion of all, in the protection and care for one another; and, in trying to take us back to 1785, they clearly demonstrate how completely disconnected they are from the global reality of the always-on, 24/7, flat-world. Our greatest dangers today are technology and the failure to halt the self-centered destructiveness of the Ayn Rand-like, Objectivist thinking of the Republicans.
CowDung
10:30 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
How exactly does that translate to 'no'? You happen to disagree with their ideas, but they clearly have a strategy, a clear plan and ideas. They are acting to move this country toward a different and what I think to be a better direction, not just saying "no".
There is no sustainability in the current Medicare system. Ryan proposed a plan to address this and the real party of 'no' came out against it. The same thing with social security. Those that want to maintain the high wage union jobs model in this age of global low cost labor are the ones that are disconnected with reality.
Bob McBride
11:13 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Here's a question for you, Nick. What percentage of your standard of living are you, personally, willing to give up to achieve the just society you envision?
Nick Poulos
11:16 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
Bob, actually I was taught to give back until it hurts and maybe then a little more
Bob McBride
11:24 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012
As far as we know you may feel you're already doing that. I'm more interested in a figure, Nick, not what you were taught. How much are you willing to sacrifice on a personal basis in order to achieve your ideal society? 5%? 10%? 30%?
It's not a difficult question, Nick....
Bob McBride
10:56 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Apparently I didn't ask the right question here. Perhaps the just society you envision involves a change that results with you being a net beneficiary, rather than giving up a percentage of your standard of living, as a part of the process of bringing it to fruition.
Maybe I should be asking you how much you expect others to sacrifice in terms of their standard of living in order to bring forth the changes you envision as being those needed. So I will.
How much can I expect to give up in terms of my standard of living so that your vision of a just society is achieved, Nick?
Nick Poulos
11:23 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
@Bob; I have a life. I don't live on patch. 5th grade sleep-over going on.
But, yes; your question is non-contextualized. Are you willing to give everything? I am willing to give everything until it hurts. I think that is enough said.
Bob McBride
12:34 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
It certainly speaks volumes about the amount serious of thought you've given the topic.
Nick Poulos
4:00 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
oh, wow! good come back. Actually when you ask a question that has no context, it is just a phishing expedition; and I won't bother. I've answered your questions, endured your insults. I realize that you and many people now think greed is the great virtue and that the concepts of Justice, The Good, Truth, Beauty, Unity, Goodness, Love and the 7 deadly sins no longer matter: since each and every one of you is his or her own god. I happen to believe that "only a god can save us." so it goes.
Bob McBride
4:08 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
There's plenty of context, Nick. You just don't want to be bothered with it.
The kind of society you desire has tremendous costs associated with it. Saying you'll give everything you can and then some isn't an answer. It's a philosophy. Philosophy doesn't put bread on the table.
If you haven't even bothered to think through the costs involved in the Utopian society you desire and how those costs are going to effect the standard of living of those charged with supporting your society, you honestly can't be given credit for having given it serious thought.
Deflecting and avoiding questions because you don't want to be bothered with them flies directly in the face of your oft repeated plea that we question, rather than accept. I guess that applies to everyone except you, eh Nick? You we have to accept on face value. To question you is out of the question, apparently
Nick Poulos
5:39 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Bob, I'm busy with my kids and insulting me just proves it is not worth the time nor the emotional investment to try to open the mind of someone completely opposed to the issues at hand. And, again: it is not a contextualized question. In order for that to occur, the complete desired end-state has to be agreed upon. you just want a Governor who can be bought and sold and paid for by the wealthy, because, apparently, you believe greed and self-centeredness are the new American virtues; and, you wanna join the bandwagon.
the question you avoid answering yourself, except indirectly is this: do you want to have the United States remain and be strengthened as a democratic republic or have you sold yourself into a slavery unobserved and recognized, government by a plutocratic oligarchy. that is the question at hand. gotta run. kids to love.
Bob McBride
5:59 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that the above is the result of you just not being a very good multi-tasker, Nick.
Abe Lincoln
6:41 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
I do agree that is about style of government. Big government with high spending not thinking about the debt our kids will have, big government imposing their rules on religious hospitals, big government thinking that it will create jobs through stimulus(that sure did not work) versus creating new businesses. I dont like that big government!!
The fundamental issue is that we have a President who has no experience at making tough strategic choices and leading groups successfully. It all flows down from there.....
Randy1949
7:25 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Abe, do religious hospitals that serves the general public get to impose their rules on us? I think at some point, the government gets to step in and tell a Jehovah's Witness hospital that it must provide blood transfusions to accident victims or lose its license to serve the public.
Big government or small government -- we have to ask ourselves if the government will represent everyone rather than function as a business model, where only the productive are favored.
Nick Poulos
9:18 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Bob, i just won't play your game by your rules. the question I put on the table is pellucid
- as in per + luceo/lucere = thoroughly clear. You keep wanting to take the conversation away from the critical point in the debate (although the personal integrity, morality, ethics, and honesty of Scot Walker all are at least suspect and must be questioned). I can multitask very well, thank you. Technology and living on patch.com are not health and life-giving: at least not when there can be no dialogue. And again, your question as posed cannot be answered by anyone. Even Lyle , who in all likelihood has worked out the algorithm to support an Utopia such as Plato's or Thomas Moore's, wouldn't jump in with an answer. nothing is defined. and I won't play the game the way you wanna. It's a waste of time. Answer the real question: Democracy, a democratic republic, or an Oligarchy driven by the Plutes,a government by, for, and belonging only to some, to the chosen Tea Party few, apparently i.e., you and your friends?
Bob McBride
9:57 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Nick, you don't need an algorithm to answer the question. Just some balls and some honesty. What percentage of your standard of living are you willing to forgo in order to pay for the Utopian lifestyle you envision for our country? It's a simple question. How much skin are you willing to put into the game?
I assume you understand that in order to support the kind of government you want in this country, it's going to cost the average citizen more than it does now, whether it be in terms of taxes, or cost of consumer goods, food, transportation, healthcare, etc - or all of them. You don't need an exact figure, other than a percentage you're willing to contribute to have the kind of system in place that you want.
You can continue to avoid the question and look like an out of touch elitist who can't be bothered with trivial things like how we pay for your Utopia, or you can step up and say "Here's, specifically, the length to which I'm willing to go to have what I want". Your call, Nick. You're the one making it a "game" by refusing to address the very real considerations surrounding the kind of changes you want to this nation to make.
Nick Poulos
9:24 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
i can respect your opinion, Abe, about size of government. this time you are wrong, however; in my opinion. The austerity measures you have been duped to embrace will NOT resurrect, and breathe new life into, our nation: it won't work. Read "End the Depression Now!" by Paul Krugman. We need a Roosevelt-like put the entire nation back to work type of investment environment, and we need many other changes, including taxing the rich instead of giving them - of all people - breaks they do neither deserve, do anything positive for others as a result, or provide decent jobs for others. Sadly, this is the crew self-centeredly raking in profits off the back of others while sending jobs off-shore, so that they can make more. There is a sin of super affluence, hyper-greed: it is not a virtue. Vote for Barret. Re-elect Obama: his vision and strategy are lazer-focused to bring us into the 21st ct, unlike the Tea Party which wants to return to the 1780's.
Jay Sykes
11:22 pm on Saturday, May 26, 2012
I don't know where you see tax breaks handed out to the the rich, Nick. For those with income over $200,000 effective Jan 1,2013:
Tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% to 43.4%—(effectively 10% higher than under Clinton); Tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 23.8%—a 60% increase(20% rate under Clinton). Tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 43.4%—an increase of almost 200%(39.6 rate under Clinton).
The estate tax exemption will drop from $5 million to $1 million and the estate tax rate will rise from 35% to 55%—a 55% increase.
No vote by Congress required;no Obama signature required; these rates are the law.
Randy1949
5:18 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
In retrospect, it might have been better of Bush to leave the Clinton rates alone. We might not have needed to raise taxes so dramatically to make up for years of insufficient revenue.
Jay Sykes
7:48 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
@Randy... I agree that the ordinary marginal rate(39%) and capital gains(20%) under Clinton did not need to need lowered. These changes likely caused the government revenue to be lower than it should/could have been. Unfortunately, even if we raised the marginal tax rate to 100% for all income categories for those with a total income of $200,000+(confiscating every last dollar they make), we still would not not cover the budget shortfall(deficit).
Randy1949
7:53 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
No one asked for a 100% marginal tax rate on anyone making over $200K. Bu don't you think a return to the Clinton tax rates along with spending reductions would be a better idea that drastic spending cuts and further reduction in the top marginal rate? I'm not talking corporate taxes, mind you -- I'm talking individual. These people won't starve or be out in the streets.
Jay Sykes
8:41 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
@Randy... My point is, that at a100% marginal rate for $200k earners,for personal income of any category(no change in corporate taxes), you still don't have enough money to cover a yearly Obama deficit; the Bush tax cuts are a drop or two in the bucket in the Obama budget. An in balance budget, with Clinton tax rates, requires 25-35% in spending cuts. Again, I agree Bush need not have changed(lowered) the Ordinary income or Capital gains rates, under Clinton. Experience tells us that we can get a nearly 50% in an ordinary income tax rate(federal/state/FICA),on about the top 10% ordinary income earners. The know achievable maximum rates are much lower for dividends and Capital gains, than for ordinary income.
Nick Poulos
9:11 am on Sunday, May 27, 2012
Jay, I remember the days when the tax rate was 93%. Things worked. And, in many ways, society was more civil; morals and ethics mattered. Allowing these breaks to go by the boards is only right and fitting at this point in time.
Anyway, the piece was really about the choice of government, and was written to answer your question as to why I feel so passionate about these elections. For me the question we face both in the push to elect Tom Barrett , as well as the one to keep Romney out of the White House, is form of government: today our true choice is between a democratic republic and a plutocratic oligarchy. Either we want an inclusive form of government or one designed by, with, and for, only the few.
J. B. Schmidt
4:27 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
@Nick
Was your tax rate 93% at that time? Better yet, do you write a check to the IRS for 93% of your income whether or not that is your actual tax bracket? Your life would be better off for it.
That is the choice of the government. High tax, high government dependence or low tax, low government dependence.
Randy1949
5:16 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Few people were fortunate enough to make that marginal rate, J.B., but those who did didn't whine about it so much. And it didn't break the economy either.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that a marginal tax rate of 93% doesn't mean paying 93% of your gross income.
Tonto
7:33 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Whats stopping all liberals from instructing their tax person to always take out and give the government as much tax as possible. Think of the collective good it would do. It would demonstrate they put their money where their mouth is :)
J. B. Schmidt
7:10 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
@Randy
That is completely irrelevant. As I am sure you are aware, you and every other liberal in the US takes every advantage of the tax code and doesn't pay a single penny more then what your tax form says. Then turn around, as both you and Nick now have, telling the rest of us the need for higher taxes and the benefits to society. Until you and Nick freely give the IRS the percentages of your income you claim the rich can afford, proving that it has no impact; your words are meaningless.
Lets face it, this is a 'do as I say and not as I do' moment.
Alfred
8:32 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
JB, Randy and his kind won't be happy until we are all broke and poor as him, living in filth and squalor....that is the liberals dream, equalized misery.
Alfred
8:34 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Nick Poulos you idiot, no one paid 93% of their earnings in taxes, with the number of deductions(interest on car loans for example), the effective tax rates were much less.
It is too bad the students at UW M can't sue you for educational malpractice, never have I seen someone so stupid, but it explains your failed business ventures.
Randy1949
10:46 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
@Alfred -- two things amuse me:
1) That someone who thinks deductions are the only thing that affects marginal versus effective tax rates can claim to be a successful businessman. I bet your accountant rolls his eyes and laughs behind your back.
2) That you think you have any clue about my living conditions. Your 'filth and squalor' remarks merely show your contempt for anyone you think is less worthy (makes less money) than you do.
Alfred
10:52 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Randy, crawl back in your van down by the river, I never said that deductions were the only factor, I merely used it as an example for Professor Poulos, who is polluting kids minds, and yours. Now get back to your goobermint cheese sammich, and you are welcome for me carrying your water.
Randy1949
11:04 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Actually, you did say that very thing, Alfred. You must have slept through English class, if indeed you ever took one, because you can't write your way out of a wet paper sack. The word for the day is 'semantics'.
Nick is right. I remember a time when the marginal tax rate was outrageous according to you guys, and the economy was in much better shape.
As for your insults about government cheese and vans by the river, you have no clue. I pay for my own food, I own my own property, and I probably carry some of your water.
J. B. Schmidt
12:46 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
@Randy
What is your proof the economy was better because of the tax rate vs. the economy appeared good because of where we came from yet was being held back by the high tax rate?
Bren
6:51 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
I remember a vigorous discussion awhile back about a particular word choice, "Everlasting" vs. "eternal." The NIV in certain places changed the word "everlasting" (KJV) to "eternal." I maintained that this usage, while superficially adequate, utterly failed to advance the passage(s) by robbing readers of the opportunity to experience their full emotional and syllabic resonances. The sheer poetic beauty of the word "everlasting," is immanent; "eternal" is perfunctory.
Perhaps this is why I am so offended by the meaningless catch phrases that define (not only) the Walker persona/"eternal" campaign strategy. "We're broke!" "It's working!" "'We're' Moving Wisconsin Forward!" "Backwards Barrett!"
Such phrases, like the proverbial Trojan Horse, deliver lethal misinformation housed within innocuity. In the example of "everlasting"/"eternal," the perfunctory word choice arguably caused impact deflection in the reader. In the example of "It's working!" the "casing" of (false) well-being and security hides a bitter and expensive truth.
James R Hoffa
7:11 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
@Nick -
Why do you even bother asking us peon simpletons if we're asking the right questions or not when you've already provided us with the right answer in voting for Tom Barrett.
A little disingenuous, aren't we?
You remind me of Montalban's Khan from Star Trek - only without the Latin flair, charm, or charisma!
Bob McBride
9:45 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
I think he's missing the prosthetic beefcake man-boobs as well, but it's hard to tell exactly what's under the '80s retro business attire from the picture alone.
SkinnyDude
12:39 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
President. Mr. Obama was quoted while speaking from the G-8 Summit: “My job is to take into account everyone not just some. I think we all know this President has a lot of lip service and little reality. In West Virginia this fine President is looking out for everyone else so well he lost many counties to a Federal Prisoner from Texas in his Democratic primary.
i don't think the majority of the state have ever been so focused on the politics of this state and the course they want it to go . Let the voters decide theyre own conclusions to the questions that weigh on their own minds. That's Democracy!