Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!
No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.
I'm not sure.
To ignore the fundamentals of what makes other economies and societies function while adhering to some kind of dogma is precisely how and why the Uniparty has lead the USA down to the very end of the road of self destruction. The notion that ANY country in this world can function without social programmes is naiive in the extreme, to say the least. What HAS to be learned, though, is the balance between social programmes that cause people to seek work vs. social programmes that facilitate them NOT seeking or needing to seek work. That and the understanding of what a balanced budget is.
IMHO the road to salvation can be found by writing legislation and policy that removes special privilege (killing rule-by-special-interest) and learns from what does and does NOT work in other countries (as well as in USA).
Last edited by cannuck; 01-31-13 at 10:22 AM.
And as far as I'm concerned, 133% of poverty is an "ultra low" level. If you make 8 bucks an hour full-time, you're past 133% of PL.
Poor you and all the uneducated proles, huh? Cry some tears for me.
You are correct that social programs are necessary. You're also correct that they need to focus on getting people off of the program rather than keeping them in it for extended periods of time. Where you're wrong is that the US Government has any legal or legitimate mandate to be involved in them. It has none. Right down to the concept of public education. As for the budget.... nobody in DC knows what a budget is, balanced or otherwise.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
That is PRECISELY the kind of reactionary, dogmatic politics that changed a very good thing (the 1929 stock market crash) into the dirty thirties. Isolationism, protectionism and bootstrap economics simply don't work.Not at all. In fact it is the ignoring of that dogma, and the attempts to be like and interact with other countries and economies that has brought us to the brink of destruction.
I understand your sentiments, and don't totally disagree, but reality and the experience of EVERY developed nation is telling you that what you want is simply not possible or practical any more.You are correct that social programs are necessary. You're also correct that they need to focus on getting people off of the program rather than keeping them in it for extended periods of time. Where you're wrong is that the US Government has any legal or legitimate mandate to be involved in them. It has none. Right down to the concept of public education. As for the budget.... nobody in DC knows what a budget is, balanced or otherwise.
I will respectfully disagree with the second half of your sentence. I do agree that the special interst lobbies need to die a quick and brutal death, but I believe it needs to occur by going back to the Constitution, thereby removing the Government from the social structure welfare entirely.
This is insanity. He's not stopping either - he's still trying to collapse our economy. Any commentary on why he is not facing impeachment for recently signing away a billion dollars "aid" to Egypt, that includes a squadron of jet fighters, all as a "gift"?? How is he allowed to continue to do this?
When we, as a people who elected this guy, say we must cut spending drastically to save us from total economic collapse, and he responds by giving away more billions, isn't he basically saying "FK U American people, I'm going to collapse the dollar and cause total economic failure so that total chaos and civil unrest occurs, so that we can implement martial law, fill up the FEMA prisons (that we have built with your money and are now waiting to go operational), so that we can carry out the genocide that my puppetmasters have been planning so meticulously because they feel it is their duty to save the earth from having all of its resources depleted by too many people BLAH BLAH". Meanwhile, THEY are the ones suppressing the technologies that would allow us to not have to use any of earths resources.
By the way, I learned something about the MIC today that is somewhat disturbing but I'm going to start a different thread with it as it veers away from this topic.
"The wealthiest" are not feeding their money to hogs - their money is invested in the economy.
Is it reasonable to assume that this money, taken by government from where it is, pumped through the sticky pipes of bureaucracy, diminished by misallocation, transaction costs and just plain corruption - and then reinjected into the same economy - will do a better job now than it did before?
Sure, sure, there are proper and efficient ways to spend revenues, and there are things that governments are better positioned to handle that anyone in the private sector, but what makes anyone think that at this point those areas of "positive multiplier" are not covered by the already available revenues?
Look at the budget pie, look at the details. Contrary to what Obama and Co. say, we most definitely do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem of hellish proportions.
You want to tax "the rich" more, out of simple envy, or for whatever other reason? Fine. But do it in a minimally intelligent way. How about eliminating loopholes, targeted tax breaks and subsidies? That will show 'em dastardly tycoons - especially those who are eager to manipulate the political machine to their advantage.
But wait a sec - isn't this exactly what the evil, evil GOP just had proposed - and the Administration had swiftly rejected, because....because...ahm, you see, "the wealthiest" is a great Straw Man to bayonet in public, for fun and political profit. But when the circus curtain is down, you want to diminish wealth and influence of your opponents, not of the "wealthiest" you are connected to and feeding off. Slap a higher marginal rate on "everyone wealthy", then engineer ways for your clientele to dodge the bullet. The oldest trick in the book, really.
Last edited by Cyrylek; 02-07-13 at 03:14 AM.