This is an interesting thread.
I have a friend who is a slaveowner. He is a nice enough guy but he says he just cannot live without his slaves. He needs their labor to make his life bearable. I know this because I am one of his slaves. I work two days most weeks for his benefit. Some weeks I have to work three days for his benefit. He tells me I should be very happy that I am allowed to keep any of the wealth I create.
His needs are unlimited. He needs food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education. He does not need a job. That is what I am for. I work. He benefits. To his credit he truthfully tells me that anyone can become a slaveholder like him and lead a life with plenty of time to get very, very good at World of Warcraft. While I am working as his slave, he plays. Fortunately he seldom gloats about it. He tells me all that I need to do is stop working. There are still plenty of slaves out there so anyone who wants to can live a life of leisure.
???
I noted that the very idea that businesses create jobs was lightly dismissed in the first few posts.
Businesses can create jobs. However, many jobs, especially a number of higher-paying jobs, have been 'outsourced', contributing to poverty and unemployment. Also, there is virtually no connection between job growth and company profits. i can cite dozens of instances where companies laid off thousands of employees while raking in record-breaking profits. The trickle-down effect is a myth.
This is the crux of our problems. Many of you are Marxists, socialists, or some other "ist". More and more I realize that the labels don't work. Ronald Reagan used the term "statist." I am beginning to like the term statist. I will explain statism in some later post.
Ronald Reagan was a Statist.
Here are some things I believe:
o Nations do not become great nor prosperous due to government spending
Except when they do.
o The federal government is spending nearly twice as much as it takes from taxpayers
That's probably accurate.
o About one-half of the people in the US do not pay federal income taxes
That's probably accurate.
o Governments do not create wealth. Government consume wealth
o Government jobs do not create wealth. Government jobs consume wealth
They do both. In times of crisis, or if private companies simply refuse to hire American workers, or whatever, the state becomes the employer of last resort. The government does pay these people's salaries, but those people spend that income, and the businesses from which they purchase goods and services benefit.
o The United States Constitution is not a Marxist document
I don't recall anybody claiming that it was, especially because, when it was written, Karl Marx hadn't even been born, yet.
- There are no provisions to take wealth from one individual to give it to another
The government is allowed to tax it's citizens, according to the Constitution. The Constitution really doesn't dictate how that money can be used.
- "From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs", is not found in the US Constitution.
First; Again, he wasn't even born, yet.
Second; it probably should be. I'm not a Marxist, but that's one of the points in which I'm in total agreement. Also, I'd estimate the majority of the American people would agree.
No one is entitled to any good or service. Ever.
Like the Dude said; Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Myself, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and a couple billion others disagree.
To believe so has always led to tyranny.
This is untrue, and it's a non-sequitor.
My daughter has a socialist friend. She believes I should pay for her education because she wants one and I am "rich". "From each according to his abilities..." And she wants an education. "To each according to his needs."
She wants you, personally, to pay for her education? Unless you've been stepping out, I see no reason why should have to shoulder that responsibility, yourself. However, there's no legitimate reason why some small percentage of your taxes shouldn't go towards educating our young people. It's more productive than spending it on bombs.
Consider the words of Thomas Jefferson;
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right."
"Only popular government can safeguard democracy. . . . Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. . . "
"...the children of the poor must be thus educated at common expense."
Many of you believe I should pay for your health care. It is nonsense. You do not have the right to make me your slave, even if you really, really want something.
Comparing nationalized healthcare and slavery is asinine. Also, Single-Payer healthcare has been supported by a clear majority of the American public for decades.
One of you said that some European nations have no debt. This is false. The very best case is Luxembourg which has a debt to GDP ratio of about 18%. Most are so bad they describe it as a debt crisis.
That is enough for now. Thanks for reading.
Virtually every nation has a certain amount of debt. However, for just one example, if we compare what these nations spend, we notice that the rest of the industrialized world, adjusted for population, spends around half of what we do, and the cover almost everybody. A number of them also have better outcomes. Adopting Single-Payer healthcare would be the best thing we could do for our economy, and, y'know, the American people. Incidentally.
