Hee hee!
He's pretty funny, and his analysis of the Republicans and the corporations is pretty right-on, but he's totally letting Obama and the Democrats off the hook. Imho.
Hee hee!
He's pretty funny, and his analysis of the Republicans and the corporations is pretty right-on, but he's totally letting Obama and the Democrats off the hook. Imho.
The democrats are on the hook becuase they are too conseravtive themselves and do not stand together and give up to much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they're just as much a party ruling on behalf of the rich and corporate interests as the Republicans are. And they've always been so.
I'm not really a big fan of either.
EDIT: Hey! Don't go changing the question after I answer!
Which is better: A single person, or a party?
Well that depends, Gark. Is it a party of socialist goblins?
|
The democrats are on the hook becuase they are too conseravtive themselves and do not stand together and give up to much.Hee hee!
He's pretty funny, and his analysis of the Republicans and the corporations is pretty right-on, but he's totally letting Obama and the Democrats off the hook. Imho.
They have no together...
I am not opposed to conservative concepts. I am pretty much in line with Obama. But the left has been shouted down so that the moderate point of view is not seen as moderate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wealthiest ~2% control ~90% of the nation's money. That's something like 13.5 trillion dollars annually. (300 million people * $50k avg per capita income * 0.9 = 13.5 trillion.)
Just take it all. All of it. For ONE year. Say thanks and point them to the line for 2nd mortgages (on their multiple homes) and remind them they'll be just fine in 12 months. We've left a much higher percentage of poor/homeless people out to dry for as long as anyone can remember, what's the deal with this 2%?
OH WAIT, they own all the politicians, every corporation, and essentially the entire country.
Just take it all. All of it. For ONE year. Say thanks and point them to the line for 2nd mortgages (on their multiple homes) and remind them they'll be just fine in 12 months. We've left a much higher percentage of poor/homeless people out to dry for as long as anyone can remember, what's the deal with this 2%?
Yes! Yes!
That's what I'm talking about!
...but why only for 12 months?
12 months would be a reasonable minimum, wiping over 90% of the deficit clean.
It's funny that the deficit is almost the same amount of money that the ultra-rich withhold from the system by not paying taxes...
12 months would be a reasonable minimum, wiping over 90% of the deficit clean.
It's funny that the deficit is almost the same amount of money that the ultra-rich withhold from the system by not paying taxes...
That's blatantly false.
Your numbers are no where close to reality.
|
I would add
A) You also have to pay for two wars, and they cost money.
B) When you cut government spending, you also cut government jobs...so why is it surprising unemployment isn't going down?
*Facepalm*
Raise taxes... mainly on the rich... Actually make them pay... and no putting it out of the country won't work.
The Middle class should not be taxed more.
Cut the spending!... there are only so much pork we can take. And no I do not mean in the Education. I mean All these extra road projects and crap.
Raise the debt ceiling, with a provision that it will drop SIGNIFICANTLY over the next few years. This way you can pay what you need to now, but your not spending my kids money tomorrow.
Stop subsidizing where it is not NEEDED. Small family farm, yes. Big Conglomerates, NO. Oh and only do so on healthy foods. Veggies and such. I don't care if a fracking cheese burger is $5.00 at Mickey D's.
I don't agree with Maher on a lot of things these days, but yeah he was pretty damn close here.
|
|
Agreed mostly. A small increase on the middle class would be fine if couple with much larger increases above that. More marginal ranks and a much higher rate on the top margin.
This depends partly on who you define as middle class.
I still want to have a middle class. I feel that they have been taxed enough for now. The wealthy are paying less, from what i can tell, than they have in a long time. This is for them to invest in businesses ect.. Except they are not. So while I have no problem with people making money and really HATE the idea of wealth redistribution, they are helping the least and need to pick up their fair share.
Oh please, we have new roads that have been built here. Some of it with the help and blessing of the federal government. It's great eases up a lot of traffic congestion and made a lot of things easier. Except, they also spent money, federal money, paying for big ugly art work to make it pretty. Now in some areas it was nice and adds to the view. In others it is an obvious waste of money. This is why I said,
Disagree. While there are bad road projects, we have a serious infrastructure deficit in this country. We've been running largely on the investments we made in the 50s and earlier. A lot of infrastructure is inadequate or wearing out. Roads, yes, but also rail, public transportation where it makes sense, upgrade the electric grid, etc, etc. None of it is cheap, but it's an investment in the future of the country. Everytime we've done so in the past, it's paid off. Despite the b@$@$ing of the deficit hawks.
Cut the spending!... there are only so much pork we can take.
Infrastructure improvements in rails, so damn outdated, or the electrical grid, is not pork. It is way past time to have been updated them and would be a great public works program.
The debt ceiling is a stupid concept. First, there's no way you can enforce a provision that it will drop, so that's just feel-good language. Second, having both a budget and a debt ceiling as separate items makes no sense. Passing the budget makes it clear when you'll hit the debt ceiling, so why have two separate votes. It doesn't make sense to vote to spend the money and then not to borrow it.
More importantly, the way to get out of this hole is to rebuild the economy, not austerity measures. The states (and countries) that have cut the most aren't recovering as well as those that have kept spending.
Your right it is a damn ignorant concept I agree. Yet it is the one in which we have now. It should not just "feel-good" provisions but a hard line we should maintain. While borrowing may at times be needed. You have to pay it off some time.
Yes rebuilding the economy is job one, but in my opinion sometimes austerity measures are needed. Sometimes you just have to tell the kids no you do not need a PS3 no matter how much you may want one.
Agreed here. The big agriculture subsidies need to go. So do the big oil tax breaks. There's a lot of money to be saved, but it isn't where everyone is pointing.
Your right they are not pointing there, but they should be. "Oh no the price of X will go up." yep your right it will, for the big CORPS, so why not stop purchasing at WAL*MART and help another company instead.
Oh, one more thing: Get out of the wars. Cut the military drastically. One thing the last 50 years (not to mention the rest of history) should have shown us is that if you have a big army, you're going to use it.
Yes and No. Get out of the Wars in an intelligent and practical process. Honestly we never should have been in or did anything in Iraq as we did. Too damn late. We deal with things as we should. We take the high road as we should have in the first place.
Cut the military budget, yes over time we should. I however do not think it should be as drastic as I think many others do.
12 months would be a reasonable minimum, wiping over 90% of the deficit clean.
It's funny that the deficit is almost the same amount of money that the ultra-rich withhold from the system by not paying taxes...
That's blatantly false.
Your numbers are no where close to reality.
Which are you referring to, my hyperbole or my assertion that the rich hold 90% of the nation's wealth?
Which are you referring to, my hyperbole or my assertion that the rich hold 90% of the nation's wealth?12 months would be a reasonable minimum, wiping over 90% of the deficit clean.
It's funny that the deficit is almost the same amount of money that the ultra-rich withhold from the system by not paying taxes...
That's blatantly false.
Your numbers are no where close to reality.
Both of these statements are blatantly false.
" 12 months would be a reasonable minimum, wiping over 90% of the deficit clean.
It's funny that the deficit is almost the same amount of money that the ultra-rich withhold from the system by not paying taxes..."
A 100% tax rate on the top 1% of tax payers might knock a trillion dollars off the deficit in one year. This would not even lower the deficit to the levels the Republicans were running for the first six years of the Bush 43 administration. That's no where close to a 90% reduction.
Obviously this also shows that your second statement is blatantly false.
You Can’t Tax the Rich Enough to Close the Deficit
This is a popular idea that has no basis in reality. Many people like the idea of taking someone else's money to "fix the problem", but even if we raised taxes by $1,500,000,000,000 every year our entitlement spending would drag us back into debt in just a couple of years, and we would still be left with a national debt around our entire GDP.
A 1.5 trillion dollar a year tax increase would collapse the economy, and still leave us with far too much debt to pay for generations.
The wealthy already pay the vast majority of taxes. We don't have huge deficits because the rich aren't paying enough. We have huge deficits because we have massive corrupt bureaucracies that are addicted to wasting other peoples money.
Can Taxing the Rich Erase the Deficit?
EDIT: Even the left leaning politifact has this:
Tax cuts for rich not biggest deficit factor
No matter how many time a falsehood is repeated is does not turn into a fact because of repetition.
Just take it all. All of it. For ONE year. Say thanks and point them to the line for 2nd mortgages (on their multiple homes) and remind them they'll be just fine in 12 months. We've left a much higher percentage of poor/homeless people out to dry for as long as anyone can remember, what's the deal with this 2%?
Yes! Yes!
That's what I'm talking about!
...but why only for 12 months?
Stalin would be proud...
...the ghost of my relatives murdered by his socialist/communist regime...not so much.
Nonesense
People who link to the heritage foundation aren't allowed to complain about others twisting or making up facts.
Sorry, hope that helps.
That you back this up with Murdoch's personal blog followed by calling PolitiFact "left leaning" just shows that you don't have an argument.
NonesensePeople who link to the heritage foundation aren't allowed to complain about others twisting or making up facts.
Sorry, hope that helps.
That you back this up with Murdoch's personal blog followed by calling PolitiFact "left leaning" just shows that you don't have an argument.
A lie is still a lie.
Raises taxes won't help.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/wsj-hausers-law.html
People like to make this really silly simplifications about economics. Such as predicting that a 10% increase in the taxes on something will result in 10% more revenue.
It does not work. It is wishful thinking. This is just one aspect of the problems with the CBO, but it is among the reasons the CBO is so consistently LAUGHABLY wrong.
If you want more revenues, broadly speaking, you have two REAL options:
A) Pray for another IT boom type positive black swan event
B) Motivate people to produce more wealth.
If you passed as law to confiscate all the money of "wealthly" people, first, the economy would collapse overnight and second, you would find that the vast majority of that money does not exist in a physical form that CAN be confiscated. It would be catastrophic.
Raises taxes won't help.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/wsj-hausers-law.html
People like to make this really silly simplifications about economics. Such as predicting that a 10% increase in the taxes on something will result in 10% more revenue.
It does not work. It is wishful thinking. This is just one aspect of the problems with the CBO, but it is among the reasons the CBO is so consistently LAUGHABLY wrong.
If you want more revenues, broadly speaking, you have two REAL options:
A) Pray for another IT boom type positive black swan event
B) Motivate people to produce more wealth.If you passed as law to confiscate all the money of "wealthly" people, first, the economy would collapse overnight and second, you would find that the vast majority of that money does not exist in a physical form that CAN be confiscated. It would be catastrophic.
Well said; the idea that raising prices 100% for a business would automatically generate 100% more money for a business is absurd on it's face, but people refuse to see that with taxes.
It's amazing to me that some people don't get that raising taxes drastically will result in drastic responses like leaving the country or hiding assets off shore.
I fail to see where that will help the US economy.
|
|
Evil Bush Tax Rates Made Rich Bastards Pay More Taxes!
Weak sauce on cherry picked numbers, I would hope you are better than that.
The reason the top 1% paid more in taxes is because the top 1% made significantly more as a proportion of total income.
You'll note on your graph prior to the Bush tax cuts the top 1% of earners paid 37.1%
After the Bush tax cut they paid 33.1%
Now if you want a serious conversation
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/ber nie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
Evil Bush Tax Rates Made Rich Bastards Pay More Taxes!Weak sauce on cherry picked numbers, I would hope you are better than that.
The reason the top 1% paid more in taxes is because the top 1% made significantly more as a proportion of total income.
You'll note on your graph prior to the Bush tax cuts the top 1% of earners paid 37.1%
After the Bush tax cut they paid 33.1%
Now if you want a serious conversation
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/ber nie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
|
|
Evil Bush Tax Rates Made Rich Bastards Pay More Taxes!Weak sauce on cherry picked numbers, I would hope you are better than that.
The reason the top 1% paid more in taxes is because the top 1% made significantly more as a proportion of total income.
You'll note on your graph prior to the Bush tax cuts the top 1% of earners paid 37.1%
After the Bush tax cut they paid 33.1%
Now if you want a serious conversation
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/ber nie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
And the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income, which is more than the entire bottom 50 percent.
And the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income, which is more than the entire bottom 50 percent.Evil Bush Tax Rates Made Rich Bastards Pay More Taxes!Weak sauce on cherry picked numbers, I would hope you are better than that.
The reason the top 1% paid more in taxes is because the top 1% made significantly more as a proportion of total income.
You'll note on your graph prior to the Bush tax cuts the top 1% of earners paid 37.1%
After the Bush tax cut they paid 33.1%
Now if you want a serious conversation
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/ber nie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
Yet don't they still pay proportionately more? Is your argument that the tax code is regressive, or is it that the tax code is not progressive enough for you?
EDIT: Is that the bottom 50% of tax payers or population?
|
|
Yet don't they still pay proportionately more? Is your argument that the tax code is regressive, or is it that the tax code is not progressive enough for you?
EDIT: Is that the bottom 50% of tax payers or population?
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf
Notice a trend on the chart?
As to citations.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/ber nie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moor e/moore-says-top-1-percent-owns-more-financial-wealt/
You'll note this is a fact checking website, rather than a left or right wing mouthpiece.
Yet don't they still pay proportionately more? Is your argument that the tax code is regressive, or is it that the tax code is not progressive enough for you?
EDIT: Is that the bottom 50% of tax payers or population?
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf
Notice a trend on the chart?
As to citations.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/ber nie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moor e/moore-says-top-1-percent-owns-more-financial-wealt/
You'll note this is a fact checking website, rather than a left or right wing mouthpiece.
I can't get any of these links to work.
Are they working for any one else?
|
|
Yet don't they still pay proportionately more? Is your argument that the tax code is regressive, or is it that the tax code is not progressive enough for you?
EDIT: Is that the bottom 50% of tax payers or population?
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf
Notice a trend on the chart?
As to citations.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/ber nie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moor e/moore-says-top-1-percent-owns-more-financial-wealt/
You'll note this is a fact checking website, rather than a left or right wing mouthpiece.
I can't get any of these links to work.
Are they working for any one else?
Links to studies included.
A lie is still a lie.NonesensePeople who link to the heritage foundation aren't allowed to complain about others twisting or making up facts.
Sorry, hope that helps.
That you back this up with Murdoch's personal blog followed by calling PolitiFact "left leaning" just shows that you don't have an argument.
Yes, and both Heritage and WSJ specialize in those.
|
|
Yes, and both Heritage and WSJ specialize in those.A lie is still a lie.NonesensePeople who link to the heritage foundation aren't allowed to complain about others twisting or making up facts.
Sorry, hope that helps.
That you back this up with Murdoch's personal blog followed by calling PolitiFact "left leaning" just shows that you don't have an argument.
"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert
"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephen ColbertYes, and both Heritage and WSJ specialize in those.A lie is still a lie.NonesensePeople who link to the heritage foundation aren't allowed to complain about others twisting or making up facts.
Sorry, hope that helps.
That you back this up with Murdoch's personal blog followed by calling PolitiFact "left leaning" just shows that you don't have an argument.
Of course, just ask political prisoners in China, USSR, north Korea, Cuba, or US federal prison.
Am I the only one who finds this intellectually vacant?
I seriously doubt anyone cares where their torturers are on the political spectrum whether they are in a gulag or a concentration camp.
The facts are the facts and the lies are still lies no matter who is speaking.
Try again.
Yet don't they still pay proportionately more? Is your argument that the tax code is regressive, or is it that the tax code is not progressive enough for you?
EDIT: Is that the bottom 50% of tax payers or population?
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf
Notice a trend on the chart?
As to citations.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/ber nie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moor e/moore-says-top-1-percent-owns-more-financial-wealt/
You'll note this is a fact checking website, rather than a left or right wing mouthpiece.
I can't get any of these links to work.
Are they working for any one else?
Links to studies included.
Do you think massive invasive government levels the playing field or helps the rich get richer?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think massive invasive government levels the playing field or helps the rich get richer?
Did you think feudalism was the way to go?
Because that is an equivalent Strawman.
I think you will notice that consolidation of wealth causes wealth to circulate less effectively. If over 20% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the people, there is only 80% left to circulate in the general economy.
When .1% hold over 10% of the Wealth...yes, that is a problem.
Do I think that we should tax to equality? No. Do I realize that currently we have about 500,000 less government jobs than we did at the start of the Obama Administration, yes.
Do I think those 500,000 people are now on the wrong side of paying taxes, spending money, etc...yes.
Do I think going back to Clinton era levels on taxes of income above 250,000 is reasonable. Damn right I do.
Because it is only on the income above 250,000 dollars, and we need the money to do the things we like government to do, like build roads, clean up after natural disasters, regulate food, etc...
And each of those things is done by a person, who receives a salary, which they use in their area as part of their economy.
And before you argue for not taxing the job creators, read this.
Do you think massive invasive government levels the playing field or helps the rich get richer?
Did you think feudalism was the way to go?
Because that is an equivalent Strawman.
I think you will notice that consolidation of wealth causes wealth to circulate less effectively. If over 20% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the people, there is only 80% left to circulate in the general economy.
When .1% hold over 10% of the Wealth...yes, that is a problem.
Do I think that we should tax to equality? No. Do I realize that currently we have about 500,000 less government jobs than we did at the start of the Obama Administration, yes.
Do I think those 500,000 people are now on the wrong side of paying taxes, spending money, etc...yes.
Do I think going back to Clinton era levels on taxes of income above 250,000 is reasonable. Damn right I do.
Because it is only on the income above 250,000 dollars, and we need the money to do the things we like government to do, like build roads, clean up after natural disasters, regulate food, etc...
And each of those things is done by a person, who receives a salary, which they use in their area as part of their economy.
And before you argue for not taxing the job creators, read this.
I think your analogy is hog wash.
I reject the comparison of less government and feudalism.
If you want more government centralized control then you want more massive invasive government.
If I don't understand your position then help me to follow.
If I understand you, you want more government jobs to protect public safety, but only the "rich" should pay.
I don't like the concentration of wealth and power, but I think your vision of big government and central planning makes the problem worse not better.
I think your strawman is b%+#%#%#.
BTW your links are still broken.
EDIT: If we can fix the economy with government jobs then the USSR should have won the cold war. I don't think it went that way.
|
|
\
I think your analogy is hog wash.
I reject the comparison of less government and feudalism.
If you want more government centralized control then you want more massive invasive government.
If I don't understand your position then help me to follow.
If I understand you, you want more government jobs to protect public safety, but only the "rich" should pay.
I don't like the concentration of wealth and power, but I think your vision of big government and central planning makes the problem worse not better.
I think your strawman is b&@@++#@.
BTW your links are still broken.
EDIT: If we can fix the economy with government jobs then the USSR should have won the cold war. I don't think it went that way.
You are the one who started with the hyperbole about the "political prisoners in China, USSR", to which I countered with an equal ludicrous strawman.
When the top .1% control more than 10% of the wealth of the country, and the top 1% control over 20% of the wealth of the county, we have the same circumstances that occured in 1928.
What happened in 1928?
Money needs to circulate for economies to work. Consolidating it in the wealthy is no more efficient than consolidating it in the treasury.
You don't like the government, I got that. But at least quote the Cato institute, because the links you have posted don't even try to hide the statistical manipulation.
And the links work fine for me. Google http://www.politifact.com/ and just go to the Truth-o-meter. They go after both sides, looking at actually studies and fact checking.
Crazy concept.
|
|
Cut the spending!... there are only so much pork we can take. And no I do not mean in the Education. I mean All these extra road projects and crap.
But those road projects help maintain our infrastructure so that we can have goods get to market in a timely manner.
Furthermore, the guys who work on those road projects turn around and spend that money on things like buying and restoring the classic car that they wanted so bad when they were a kid. Which means they buy products from the company I work for, which means my wages go up, which means I get to buy more paizo books, which means paizo stays in business, and James Sutter can afford to hire a writer to write a new book, and then that writer can afford to buy a taco, and then the guy at the taco truck can buy a chihuahua for his daughter's quinceañera, which means the pet store guy can buy his...oh, I think you get the point now.
Pork is good for America. Almost all pork spending is good spending, it just seems like it isn't if you're from another state. Like California earmarking 14 million for wine research sounds like a waste of money, until you realize that California wine is a 4 billion/year industry and the cost of that research -- which helps all American wine growers be more prosperous -- is a fraction of what the wine industry pays in local and federal taxes.
Railing against pork is good political theater, but pork isn't bad by any means.
\
I think your analogy is hog wash.
I reject the comparison of less government and feudalism.
If you want more government centralized control then you want more massive invasive government.
If I don't understand your position then help me to follow.
If I understand you, you want more government jobs to protect public safety, but only the "rich" should pay.
I don't like the concentration of wealth and power, but I think your vision of big government and central planning makes the problem worse not better.
I think your strawman is b&@@++#@.
BTW your links are still broken.
EDIT: If we can fix the economy with government jobs then the USSR should have won the cold war. I don't think it went that way.
You are the one who started with the hyperbole about the "political prisoners in China, USSR", to which I countered with an equal ludicrous strawman.
When the top .1% control more than 10% of the wealth of the country, and the top 1% control over 20% of the wealth of the county, we have the same circumstances that occured in 1928.
What happened in 1928?
Money needs to circulate for economies to work. Consolidating it in the wealthy is no more efficient than consolidating it in the treasury.
You don't like the government, I got that. But at least quote the Cato institute, because the links you have posted don't even try to hide the statistical manipulation.
And the links work fine for me. Google http://www.politifact.com/ and just go to the Truth-o-meter. They go after both sides, looking at actually studies and fact checking.
Crazy concept.
That's not what you replied to, but fine.
Your links still don't work for me.
I'm not a fan of centralized power, but you have not made any argument to the contrary that I have seen.
If you have an argument based on Cato I'm willing to hear it.
Bring it on.
Cut the spending!... there are only so much pork we can take. And no I do not mean in the Education. I mean All these extra road projects and crap.But those road projects help maintain our infrastructure so that we can have goods get to market in a timely manner.
Furthermore, the guys who work on those road projects turn around and spend that money on things like buying and restoring the classic car that they wanted so bad when they were a kid. Which means they buy products from the company I work for, which means my wages go up, which means I get to buy more paizo books, which means paizo stays in business, and James Sutter can afford to hire a writer to write a new book, and then that writer can afford to buy a taco, and then the guy at the taco truck can buy a chihuahua for his daughter's quinceañera, which means the pet store guy can buy his...oh, I think you get the point now.
Pork is good for America. Almost all pork spending is good spending, it just seems like it isn't if you're from another state. Like California earmarking 14 million for wine research sounds like a waste of money, until you realize that California wine is a 4 billion/year industry and the cost of that research -- which helps all American wine growers be more prosperous -- is a fraction of what the wine industry pays in local and federal taxes.
Railing against pork is good political theater, but pork isn't bad by any means.
That makes perfect sense if you assume that money would not have been better spent by someone besides corrupt bureaucrats who did not take that money by force.
|
|
That's not what you replied to, but fine.
Your links still don't work for me.
I'm not a fan of centralized power, but you have not made any argument to the contrary that I have seen.
If you have an argument based on Cato I'm willing to hear it.
Bring it on.
Actually, it was exactly, what I replied to. Scroll up an check.
We tried no government, it was the dark ages and it sucked.
For modern examples see Afghanistan and Somalia.
Government is the flawed check and balance on consolidated power for personal gain. Kings were the most powerful landowners who later decided that they wanted that power consolidation to be divine.
Government has similar flaws, democracy in theory should create a system where we can vote the bums out, but unfortunately it only kind of works.
But it's still better than the alternative.
It isn't as if power wouldn't consolidate if government didn't exist to regulate monopolies. It isn't as if in areas left without government involvement people work together to create more perfect unions.
Everyone wants roads and defense, no one wants to pay for it. Or rather, no-one personally wants to pay for it. The same buisness that demands de-regulation will also demand additional road construction and access to contracts.
Money is a concept. Gold was the conceptual currency that had no real value until we decided paper was cheaper and lighter. But it comes down to the same concept. It is a trade and barter game, where goods and services get moved about between those with skills to produce them.
When the money doesn't move, the economy suffers. Worse, when the economy leaves the hands of those who would spent it locally and goes to those who profit through international investment and outsourcing without them being taxed on the profit generated, you lose wealth in the system.
We have created a system with a high corporate tax beset by specialized breaks and subsidies for specific individuals and large corporate interests, manipulating the government.
I get that.
The solution is not to cut taxes on the top tax bracket, particularly when it is not about all income, but specifically the income they receive in excess of 250,000. And we aren't going back to 1950's levels, but rather to 1990's levels. You know, where we were when the budget was actually balanced.
The difference in the federal deficit being balanced and not being balanced is the cost of the two wars, the tax cuts, and the interest on the debt we are paying because we didn't incorporate those costs into the budget. The wars are particularly painful since the single biggest line item cost is fuel. Something that doesn't cycle in the economy here at all, rather it stresses the global market to raise prices here on something we refine, but don't create.
Which is a large part of why Texas is doing well. Refinery business is still booming, and oil companies based there are profiting from the margins while still collecting subsidies.
Which is the problem. And yes it is one caused by Government, although it isn't a problem that wouldn't be even more egregious without government involvement.
You don't seem to be for anything. If you believe in the invisible hand of the free market, read Adam Smith and you will discover he was very, very, afraid of centralize corporate power without regulation and oversight.
That is a reasonable position. It is not a marxist or socialist position. I suggest strongly you read to find out what that actually means, as you throw the words around like candy, while becoming offended when others do the same oversimplification of your ideology.
Or you can just keep going to the Heritage Foundation Website and reading it like it's gospel, despite the painfully obvious statistical cherry picking.
I like the Cato foundation in general, as they try to be honest. I disagree strongly with libertarianism in general, as I think it is as naive as communism.
But what they forget, and I think you forget, is that the world existed before social safety nets. And it was a horrible time, one you wouldn't want to live in. We like to glorify the past, until we realize every single labor law came into existence because at some point someone was doing whatever the law now disallows.
Corporations are shortsighted. If they were able to work toward their own best interests, they wouldn't all inevitably go bankrupt. At the turn of the Century Woolworths was Walmart, now it is gone. Because the people running it are not seeking the best interest of the company, they are seeking the best interest of themselves.
The two are only moderately aligned as the financial crisis showed. Even less so in the current transient economy we exist in.
The free market is great, when stable. This is the role of government. It is the only entity that, as an institutional goal, seeks to serve the best interest of all, as opposed to generating profit and personal wealth.
The competition of government should come in elections, but of course this is muted by the two monopolies currently in power. This is a problem, but nothing you are describing resolves it.
Frankly, you don't seem to be offering any solutions.
I suppose the magic fairy will come down and make all people work together toward a greater good over their personal self interests if only government would get out of their way.
You know, like they do in areas with less government...
Yeah...
Off to bed.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That makes perfect sense if you assume that money would not have been better spent by someone besides corrupt bureaucrats who did not take that money by force.
First of all, it's very hard to take you seriously when you claim that the money bureaucrats spend is taken by "force." It's taken by law, through a power enumerated in the Constitution that allows for taxation. The government doesn't come to your house with guns and shake you down for whatever you've got. It's all very regular, done with paperwork, prescribed by laws, and nice and non-violent.
So claiming that government spending is taken by force is just ridiculous hyperbole that indicates a lack of seriousness. Claiming taxes is theft is great and all, but that's an anarchist argument. The idea that the government is just a bunch of thug who give themselves authorization comes from Pierre Proudhoun. Pretty awesome guy, but the next part of his battle cry of "Taxes are Theft!" was "Property is Theft!" Guess what prevents workers from claiming the means of production as their own? Because guess what protects the merchant from having his goods stolen?
The same law that taxes him. The same law that says property is more than what you can hold on to. And that law is applied with force -- and in reality, a lot more force than taxes. Steal a car and you're a lot more likely to get assaulted by a police officer than if you "forget" to declare your third house on your taxes.
The American government, the one created by the constitution, is not the descendants of a bunch of hopped-up feudal warlords (i.e. aristocrats) who think they can mercilessly steal from the commoners to fund their lavish lifestyles. That would actually be the corporate class, which you may have noticed tend to move back and forth between the "private sector" and the "public sector" a lot.
Dick Cheney, first a Wyoming Congressman, then Director of Defense, under which he gave oil equipment manufacturer Halliburton choice defense contracts, became Halliburton CEO, then became VP of the United States. Revolving door?
I mean, have you ever worked for a corporation? I don't mean an incorporated business, I mean one of these giant corporations with tens of thousands of employees. Or just hundreds of employees. A place like Boeing. You ever worked for a company like Boeing? Bureaucracy up the wazoo.
You think Wal-Mart isn't a massive bureaucracy? You think General Electric isn't a massive bureaucracy? What makes you assume they'll spend it better?
And yeah, I do think the government will spend it better in a lot of cases. Because there are a lot of things we need in order to have a well-functioning economy and in some cases the government can address these needs more efficiently than the private sector can. The governments revenue is tied to the overall economic well-being of the nation, so the government is the best caretaker of those tasks that are most effective when widely distributed throughout the population, and difficult to capitalize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly all our money and major decisions needs to be in the hands of the big money owners, they'd never betray us. They're not corrupt like the government is!
*Sends children to work to pay for food out of company script*
*Works 16 hour shifts every day*
*Watches wife die in a factory fire*
Because giving the capitalist class full autonomy has never betrayed us before...right?
|
|
Simple fix:
1. Tax all personal income beyond 30,000 dollars at 25%.
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..........|......................................
..25%-|.............+------------------------
..........|.............|........................
..........|.............|........................
..........|.............|........................
..........+--------------------------------------
........................|........................
.....................$30,000.....................
2. Because Money is inherently Worthless pay workers in shares in all state assets, and resources so that they can hold on to their share and profit from the use of those resources. Ironicly this is what money was supposed to be.
3. Allow Taxes to be paid in Labour. So Poor unemployed people will work 1 day a week as Policemen, Nurses, and Senators. The value of this will not exceed 50,000 dollars.
4. Allow the realy wealthy to employ others to perform labour tax for them at a wage of fifty thousand dollars (equal to the limit of possible labour value). All tax beyond this is payable in labour and money.
Clearly all our money and major decisions needs to be in the hands of the big money owners, they'd never betray us. They're not corrupt like the government is!
*Sends children to work to pay for food out of company script*
*Works 16 hour shifts every day*
*Watches wife die in a factory fire*
Because giving the capitalist class full autonomy has never betrayed us before...right?
So what do you do when they are both completely corrupt? Because thats the situation we find ourselves in.
|
I think we should scrap the whole "money" system and replace it with belly button lint. That way, your wealth is determined entirely by the hairiness of your beer-swollen gut and the quality of the shirts that you wear.
The lower-middle class would instantly replace the wealthy as our new overlords. Golf-courses and tennis courts would be completely replaced by a radical expansion of new race tracks, hunting clubs, and bowling alleys!
What about dryer lint? Doesn't that have a place in the new economy? Of course! Much like silver in a gold standard economy, dryer lint would have less value, but still be an exhcangeable commodity! In an effort to create a farm-system, that laundromat that's been sucking you dry will allow you to wash your clothes for free! In an effort to get the most lint, they would have to support R&D for more powerful, energy efficient clothes cleaning systems, a project that has lain languid for over a decade because rich people don't clean their own clothes! "Clean" Technology would progress at an alarming rate!
Fort Knox would be replaced by a Wash-Mart!
Even better, if you find yourself in a post apocalyptic world where the economy has collapsed, you could just burn your life savings for warmth in the winter!
Utopia!