Response to Sean's Post on Patriotism

Sean uses two sentences to describe two people with different opinions on what it means to be a patriot and finds that the second one actually describes a democrat and does not necessitate the word patriot.

"You think a patriot is someone who supports their country no matter what, and I think a patriot is someone who plays a positive, active role in the development of their country while still admitting to its faults and mistakes."     

I think the two sentences used in Sean’s post could be combined to mean that a moderate patriot is someone who always supports their country and what they believe is in the best interest of their country while still admitting to its faults and mistakes. No matter how bad those faults and mistakes become they will continue to stay in their country and work for its benefits. A democrat would be willing to live in any country that best held to their ideals. The loyalty and love that a patriot feels for their country distinguishes them from simply a democrat, but this love and loyalty does not have to be blind. Parents should love and be loyal to their children, but they also need to recognize when that child has made a mistake so they can help them to change. The same is true of a member of a country. If people only see patriotism as a kind of faith in the country’s actions then many of the problems Jenson suggests will be inevitable, but if people recognize their country as a beloved but fallible organization of people, they can maintain a positive, moderate patriotism. Of course this still contains the arbitrary factor of favoring a country because one was born in it. This cannot be avoided in patriotism, but it also cannot be avoided in friendship and other relationships.

                Is dedication and loyalty to a country someone considers their own enough to constitute patriotism?  Do other factors need to be present?

Response (somewhat) to Cameron's question

                CEO’s and government may work together in ways that show corruption, but they are not the same thing. A CEO works for a business so the government does not control their pay or any of their actions as long as they obey the law. The government certainly should not be responsible for firing CEO’s corrupt or not, that is the decision of a business. The government is responsible for making sure CEO’s pay their taxes and do obey the law. That they are not doing so is what needs to change. At the same time government is in no way responsible for the survival of a business. When corrupt CEO’s or other problems lead a business to fail, they need to be able to fail. Eventually companies could not survive with CEO’s siphoning off so much money, but the government steps in and gives them tax breaks and or bail outs. Although people have come to depend on services from certain huge businesses, these businesses need to be held to the same standards as other businesses. The government certainly would not bail out your town bank, so they should not bail out a giant bank. This only sets a standard that large enough corporations can use the government to support them when they fail, so it does not matter if they start to fail. Failure means government funds. This is like rewarding someone for bad behavior. The behavior will only continue. I do not think the government should help or hinder businesses, but if they do buy out businesses then the business has to become theirs to control. If they buy businesses out, they gain the right to fire CEO’s but they should not be buying them out in the first place. For capitalism to stay a viable system, corporations need to be responsible for their own survival or failure.

                Do you think the government should buy out failing businesses and if so what is their responsibility level for the business once they have bought it?

   

Response to Article on IRS Funding Cut

            While it should be a priority to cut back spending when in debt, the article posted about cutting back on IRS agents is ridiculous. They make sure that the money owed the government is getting back to the government and without this money the government cannot begin to pay back the debt they owe. Not hiring IRS agents might sound good to people who are worried about making mistakes on their taxes or genuinely have trouble paying, but it seems more like rich people do not want the IRS agents because they do not want to give up their money. Certainly it costs money to hire these agents, but it is more than likely that each one will bring in more money than they are being paid. It does not even seem fiscally responsible to cut back on their funding. It became clear that most of the money owed was from people in higher income brackets and these people need to be expected to pay. Without enough people to enforce the law, it is clear that they will not. Also, if the government is not receiving tax money from the rich, then they will need more from other people meaning this could backfire into average people paying more in taxes because the IRS is not given the opportunity to do their job. The average person is less likely to not pay their taxes and to not respond when requested to. As the article says, “the fact that there is a ten-to-one ratio for the returns on auditing tells you that [tax evasion] is coming from the high-income brackets.” It is very wrong that the people who have the most are the ones who not only try to avoid paying taxes, but succeed.

                Do you think there is a good reason for cutting IRS funding?