|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
matthewwoodford
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| funplanet wrote: |
simple, my friend...
liberals understand that their so-called social programs create dependency whilst eliminating personal responsibility
liberals are willing to pay more taxes to fund the programs that keep their constituencies coming back for more, therefore voting them back in office time after time....
it's about gaining power through dependency |
What are you, Rush Limbaugh?!
Sure, damn those liberals for their old age pension schemes, welfare, and health and safety regulations...Never mind how many people had to fight for how long to get these things.
At least Rush makes money out of what he does. What do you get out of trying to put the clock back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kangnamdragon
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Kangnam, Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think it is good for young men here to do a few years of national service to keep taxes down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kangnamdragon
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Kangnam, Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| matthewwoodford wrote: |
| funplanet wrote: |
simple, my friend...
liberals understand that their so-called social programs create dependency whilst eliminating personal responsibility
liberals are willing to pay more taxes to fund the programs that keep their constituencies coming back for more, therefore voting them back in office time after time....
it's about gaining power through dependency |
What are you, Rush Limbaugh?!
Sure, damn those liberals for their old age pension schemes, welfare, and health and safety regulations...Never mind how many people had to fight for how long to get these things.
At least Rush makes money out of what he does. What do you get out of trying to put the clock back? |
Progress is not always good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matthewwoodford
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| And without national service, I wonder if they would have to raise taxes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matthewwoodford
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kangnamdragon wrote: |
| matthewwoodford wrote: |
| funplanet wrote: |
simple, my friend...
liberals understand that their so-called social programs create dependency whilst eliminating personal responsibility
liberals are willing to pay more taxes to fund the programs that keep their constituencies coming back for more, therefore voting them back in office time after time....
it's about gaining power through dependency |
What are you, Rush Limbaugh?!
Sure, damn those liberals for their old age pension schemes, welfare, and health and safety regulations...Never mind how many people had to fight for how long to get these things.
At least Rush makes money out of what he does. What do you get out of trying to put the clock back? |
Progress is not always good. |
I never said it was. I do maintain that social programs like old age pensions are a good thing.
Of course, if you disagree then I'd say that leaves you with two options: either you tell grandma to take personal responsibility or you take care of her personally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:06 am Post subject: Re: How can Korea function? |
|
|
| chronicpride wrote: |
| Daechidong Waygookin wrote: |
| How much raxes do you guys pay? |
RAXES? |
That is one of the funniest things I have seen on this board in a VERY long time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd take the arguments of the conservative, tax cutting advocates more seriously if they themselves were willing to be educated in Korean schools, treated in Korean hospitals and willing to be forced to serve 26 months in the army as well as having no or little safety net in the event of unemployment or illness.
As it is I'd wager most of them had their good heath, quality education and 26 months of free time in their early 20s as a direct result of the tax and spend policies of social democratic governments in the west. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Son Deureo! wrote: |
Let's not forget that a lot of the work that would otherwise be done by paid government employees is done by young males doing their two years of national slave labor, er... service.
Not just the army, but also beat cops, subway security, forest rangers, dong and gu office staff, doctors in poor communities, and many many other jobs in this country are being done by young men making around 50,000 won per month.
It seems unfair, but it sure does keep the taxes lower here. |
When you think about all that, Korean women really don't have that much to complain about when it comes to sexist treatment - I guess I'd rather live the life of a 12-year-old until I'm thrity than be a slave for two years. (did you read the story of the soldiers ordered to eat feces in basic training?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rather_Dashing
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sure, damn those liberals for their old age pension schemes, |
Social security was meant as a support fund for people in the last years of their life. When social security was created, life expectancy of a male in the US was 63 and the age at which you received benefits is 65. Now the average age of death for males in the US is 73... and that's causing problems.
Just a helpful economic viewpoint here 
Rush Limbaugh doesn't oppose welfare. He opposes welfare for people who are able to work - big difference.
| Quote: |
| and health and safety regulations... |
If you take say, oh, Quebec's route of regulating everything under the sun, you end up with 80,000 unfireable bureaucrats with huge government pensions that have 4 weeks off a year to start and get paid 60 grand a year. Businesses there spend an average of $3,000 a year on paperwork - fun! Who does that red tape help? Nobody.
| Quote: |
| I'd take the arguments of the conservative, tax cutting advocates more seriously if they themselves were willing to be educated in Korean schools, treated in Korean hospitals and willing to be forced to serve 26 months in the army as well as having no or little safety net in the event of unemployment or illness |
How about comparing apples to apples. In Canada, where I'm from, I'd rather be in a private facility than a public one. A friend of mine had to be hospitalized for 2 days and he was stuck in the fucking hallway. The hallway was crowded with other people on stretchers. And yes, stab wound and gunshot victims were being carted by him at all hours of the night.
Education? I'd rather have my kids go to private school, thank you!
Forced military service is not something conservatives specifically advocate.
| Quote: |
| As it is I'd wager most of them had their good heath, quality education and 26 months of free time in their early 20s as a direct result of the tax and spend policies of social democratic governments in the west. |
Compare the education of someone who went to a private institution, say Harvard, to someone who went to a public university. Do the same for any level of education. You see a startling difference in performance.
And remember: every dollar the government spends, the economy only sees 52 cents of it. Yes, this is the actual GDP multiplier that Statistics Canada (a government-run and funded institution) uses. The other 48 cents goes into the black hole of government inefficiency. Compare that to private spending. Suppose we ignore the rollover effects (A buys something from B; B saves some of that money and buys something from C; and so on) and say that only private spending helps the GDP. That means we'd only subtract the savings ratio (and even that's not lost, that's money spent later!) to calculate the GDP multiplier of a dollar of private spending. This ratio ranges from 1% (poor countries) to 30% (Japan). Even taking Japan as the example, that leaves a multiplier of 0.7, almost 50% higher than government spending in Canada. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Rush Limbaugh doesn't oppose welfare. He opposes welfare for people who are able to work - big difference.
|
Being "able to work" and having "work available" are two different things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rather_Dashing
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kiwiboy_nz_99 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Rush Limbaugh doesn't oppose welfare. He opposes welfare for people who are able to work - big difference.
|
Being "able to work" and having "work available" are two different things. |
That's where "unemployment insurance" comes in. He doesn't oppose that either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David76
Joined: 15 Jun 2003
Location: U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Koreans understand that lowering taxes helps the economy, in effect boosting tax revenue overall. Why can't American liberals understand this? |
American liberals can understand this, but "helping the economy" usually seems to be another term for further increasing corporate profits.
Who was it that wrote about personal accountability? If the so-called "conservatives" really believed in personal responsibility, they would oppose the war on drugs. Getting rid of that and reducing the accompanying massive prison population would reduce taxes.
Using the military for national defense instead of empire building would also be a great way to lower taxes. But alas, the right-wing has constituents of its own.
It seems the bulk of "conservatives" in the U.S. these days no longer believe in limited government, which makes their opposition to social programs look hollow. It's not that they oppose social programs on the principle of limited government, but because they want to wage class warfare, and/or due to fears and biases such as racism.
Here is a link to an article by an authentic conservative, check it out:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4245 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matthewwoodford
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rather_Dashing wrote: |
| Quote: |
| and health and safety regulations... |
If you take say, oh, Quebec's route of regulating everything under the sun, you end up with 80,000 unfireable bureaucrats with huge government pensions that have 4 weeks off a year to start and get paid 60 grand a year. Businesses there spend an average of $3,000 a year on paperwork - fun! Who does that red tape help? Nobody. |
So because Quebec has an inefficient administration you conclude health and safety regulations are red tape that helps nobody? I'd like to see you try working in a factory with no safety regulations.
| Rather_Dashing wrote: |
How about comparing apples to apples. In Canada, where I'm from, I'd rather be in a private facility than a public one. A friend of mine had to be hospitalized for 2 days and he was stuck in the *beep* hallway. The hallway was crowded with other people on stretchers. And yes, stab wound and gunshot victims were being carted by him at all hours of the night.
Education? I'd rather have my kids go to private school, thank you! |
You seem to be missing the point completely. Private medicine and education is wonderful if you can afford it. The point of liberal social programs is to provide it to people who can't afford it. If you haven't grasped that, you haven't grasped the issues involved at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
panthermodern
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Taxronto
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
In additon Korea is very much a user-pay society.
For example:
Toll Roads.
Garbage Bags.
Airport Taxes.
A sliding scale on electrial usage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rather_Dashing
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| American liberals can understand this, but "helping the economy" usually seems to be another term for further increasing corporate profits. |
No, it's not at all the same. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with profit, getting profit, or the pursuit of profit; I will not entertain any of this hogwash that getting profit is wrong.
| Quote: |
| If the so-called "conservatives" really believed in personal responsibility, they would oppose the war on drugs. Getting rid of that and reducing the accompanying massive prison population would reduce taxes. |
This is not a liberal argument, either - this is a libertarian one. Regardless, if they got rid of laws against rape and murder, there would be less people in prisons too. It's called "social responsibility". It's also pretty stupid to legalize drugs and have a public healthcare system: the moral hazard problems become ridiculously high.
| Quote: |
| Using the military for national defense instead of empire building would also be a great way to lower taxes. |
Nobody is building any empires right now.
| Quote: |
| It seems the bulk of "conservatives" in the U.S. these days no longer believe in limited government, which makes their opposition to social programs look hollow. |
This is a load of crap. They have always believed in limited government. Having a military and having anti-drug laws doesn't mean they don't believe in limited government.
And oh, social programs... remember the 52 cent rule I went into detail above (you DID read it, right?). Every dollar the government spends, the economy sees 52 cents. Private spending is much more efficient. If you think taxes should be higher, nothing is stopping you from writing a check to a charity. Charities are far more efficient than governments when it comes to helping communities.
| Quote: |
| It's not that they oppose social programs on the principle of limited government, but because they want to wage class warfare, and/or due to fears and biases such as racism. |
They oppose social programs because the vast majority do not work, or they don't believe people should be rewarded for doing nothing. The accusation of class warfare is something that conservatives invented! Conservatives do not pit old versus young, black versus white, lower class vs upper class, etc. It's the liberals that are constantly using these examples. The accusation of racism just shows how far left you've gone. You yourself know that it's not true.
He is not authentic. An authentic conservative would be someone like William Buckley or Rush Limbaugh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
