The fair tax idea is intriguing (less complicated, fewer loopholes, big-time drug dealers and other criminals will pay taxes just like everyone else, etc.), but with a bit of thought it becomes obvious that sales tax is more of a tax on businesses than it is on individuals. I don't fault people for not being able to wrap their minds around this issue, as it has been made deliberately complex to keep most of us from understanding what is going on, but we need to realize that taxes, in general, are a burden on our economy and our society as a whole
(taxes on businesses are passed on to the customers, and sales taxes are passed on to businesses, we all share it, no one is unaffected, it is all connected). Whether it's a 50% 'fair tax', or the greater than 50% combination of the scores of taxes we are nickel-and-dimed to death with, taxes suck the vitality out of our system.
Money is the lifeblood of an economy. It, representing a unit of human production, is what makes the world go round. A super-efficient, transparent government, devoid of corruption, might be able to utilize taxes to generate a net benefit for its citizens' investment, but I know of no governments like this. Instead, even in countries with relatively clean
(when compared with dictatorships), democratic governments, we get incredibly wasteful spending. In the US, the parasitic system is set up to encourage wastefulness by allocating funds based on how much certain parties spend
(as opposed to how much certain projects require). If NASA, for example, is granted $1 Billion in the current budget, but this year it only requires $600 Million, it can expect its funding to decrease drastically the next time around. Therefore, in the context of this example, NASA will be pressured to WASTE $400 Million NOW, so that it might retain its current level of funding to fuel future endeavors
(no pun intended). You don't have to dig deep to see this.
To state my opinion directly: Every dollar that the government
(especially on the federal level) takes out of the economy via taxes is a dollar nearly wasted. Every unit of a society's vitality lost to taxation is essentially squandered.
Real economic growth will not result from increasing taxation or from combining all the various taxes into one, new, easy-to-understand tax. It will come with decreased taxation. This will require a smaller government. This will require government doing merely what the public gives it a mandate for. A solution easily stated, but most difficult to implement, particularly in the US.
The US is a very big, very diverse country. You don't have to go any further than this forum to see evidence of this. Some people want bigger government, more programs, more taxation, some people want the opposite. Some people want full-blown communism, some people are die-hard libertarians. In fact, there are a host of issues that we have incompatible opinions on. The federal government needs to shrink, the states need to swell, and Americans need to stop being lazy and start voting with their feet.
Ah, but we're getting off-topic, aren't we? Huckabee? Yeah, I like him. We need more people like him (and Ron Paul, for that matter) in government. I'm certainly in the minority, but I would love to have a government full of people with his character, decency, and commitment to public-service, even if their opinions on the issues are the polar opposite of mine
(instead of a government full of lying, manipulative, overtly self-serving jerks who say they agree with me).***************************************************************
As far as evolution goes, I'm not sure that much about Darwinian evolution is really up for debate. The problem is that people on both sides of the issue
(an issue people need to realize has more than 2 sides), seem to actually have no idea what the original Darwinian evolution is. It amounts to gradual change over long periods of time due to 'nature' selecting positive traits and discarding negative traits. Most creationists I know would have no problem accepting this version of evolution. This sort of evolution might be considered a 'tenet' of science.
However, when you deviate from this beautiful, logical, common-sense theory of gradual change over time, you begin to lose people. Due to a conspicuous lack of inter-species links in the fossil records (at least what we have currently come across), some scientists are proposing that every once in a while, due to unknown factors, a species might undergo super-fast evolution. If this is true, that would explain the lack of fish-monkey bones. However, for what are obvious reasons to most, many people have a hard time accepting this sort of crafted-to-support-one's-argument evolution.
I would suggest that only things observable, measurable, and testable can qualify for the status of 'tenet'. This leaves out anything more than basic Darwinian evolution.
If you step back a bit from the emotional arguments on this topic in which your ego is invested, I think you will find that the issue is next to meaningless. It is perfectly possible to contribute to, even revolutionize, ANY of the sciences, regardless of whether or not one accepts the more extreme versions of evolutionary theory. In fact, I think a a good case could be made that those who are able to accept the more extreme versions lack certain scientific aptitudes and are thus LESS likely to be able to contribute meaningfully to science.
*****************************************************************
All that said to merely make the point that I don't believe electing people like Huckabee will take us back to the dark ages. There is so much alarmism in these forums. It doesn't matter much who gets into government, fellas, they are all part of the system. Even Huckabee, though he seems to be less-so than most. Abortion won't get any easier or freer, but it will never be made completely illegal (not even if Jerry Falwell came back and was elected president). The most that will happen is that the issue will be completely left up to the states with no federal interference. Taxes won't increase too much, but they certainly won't decrease much (because federal spending has to decrease first). Creationism will never be taught as fact in schools, the most you can expect to see is evolution presented as the theory that it is. There is a good reason that the world's best and least religious minds still refer to it as a theory. Science requires it. ... Things are not acceptable the way they currently are in the US, but not a whole lot is going to change, policy-wise, for the next decade or so. And it doesn't matter who gets into office this November.
I've been around long enough that I find the idea that this election is
the one to be amusing. This election is the CHANGE election, compared with all previous elections where candidates presented themselves as agents of enforcing the status quo... Give me a break, guys. Do you really believe that? Both of the guys running now present themselves as the candidate who will change things, but both are products of the establishment, both went through their respective parties to get into power. And both of them overwhelmingly vote along party lines. McCain has deviated from his party only about 10% of the time, while Obama has only deviated from his party about 3% of the time. Sure, they may be a bit more independent than the majority of their party-buddies, but they're not meaningful change. Neither of them. And they aren't worth the calories we expend freaking out over them.
If it is change you are afraid of, be not afraid. From the looks of things, the current corrupt duopoly isn't going anywhere.
Edited by wanderer, 14 September 2008 - 06:18 AM.
