Trump’s war on socialism will fail

[sangha]

Hmm...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An idealistic proposal constructed in the aftermath of one of the world's great atrocities. The sting of Bergen Belsen and Hiroshima were still tangible. Stalin and Mao were still in the suburbs of the "civilized" world and Ghandi...poor Ghandi had laid down his life for peace. It was incumbent on the world to never again visit the horrors of the previous 40 years. Thus, the UDHR was to be the salvation of mankind. It was a nice, warm blanket for us all to wrap ourselves in. Unfortunately, it was merely a wish list...a thing to which one might aspire but not something that would realistically be attained.

Well, it wouldn't be attained unless sufficient international pressure was put on the parties involved to force compliance. And therein lay the problem. When liberty becomes a state mandate it ceases to be liberty.

As long as the UDHR is treated as a goal we can have liberty. Once it is treated as a requirement we have crossed into the territory of tyranny.

The UDHR defines the terms "fundamental freedom " and "human rights" - terms that are used in the UN Charter which is legally binding on its members

 

[sangha]

You do understand that national security is one of the major roles of the federal government correct.

The wall has nothing to do with national security.

All of the rights arguments are based on lies.

 

[Irwin Corey]

One article, one opinion piece. The article doesn't blame it on Republicans. It quotes a Democrat that blames it on Republicans (in addition to others that blame it on other factors).

There's no use us talking, you have your opinion and I mine. Look at the charts in post 131, read iguanaman's words in 132; that's the end of this discussion with you. :2wave:

 

[sangha]

What gives you the right to determine how much money someone else should make.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to set income tax rates at whatever level, and for any reason, it sees fit

 

[sangha]

It is found in the preeminent role of the Federal Government....

"To provide for the common defense"

The role of the federal government was then legislatively codified in 1860. It has been further modernized and defined by law beginning with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952...still the founding document that all modern revisions stem from.

Wait...you didnt REALLY want to know all this...did you?

Walls are no defense

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, the problem is the simple minded belief that 20th century solutions based on mythical free market forces will solve the problems created by 20th century solutions based on mythical free market forces

Which M4A bill does that?

 

[sangha]

The trend in the US is toward more support of socialist policies, not less. The biggest opponents of socialism are the baby boomers who grew up during the cold war. To them, socialism is the enemy who might nuke them. But they're starting to die off in greater and greater numbers now. On the other hand, millennials who reached adulthood right around the Great Recession have a rather dim view of unrestrained capitalism, because it treated them pretty badly. That, combined with the fact that they're too young to remember the cold war, makes them much more likely to support socialist policies.

It seems pretty inevitable to me that we're going to see a steady gradual shift toward more socialist policies in the US over the next 10-20 years.

To be more specific, the greatest opposition to Socialism comes from uneducated white males AKA Republicans

 

[sangha]

Of course you are; No parasite wants to kill off its host completely.

You say parasite as if it's a Bad Thing but you have billions of them in your body and you would die without them

 

[sangha]

So, I clicked on the link to the study referenced in paragraph two of the article you cited and got this message: "Sorry, the page or file you are looking for was not found (error 404)"

Accordingly I reference the following study: "The Impact of Inequality on Growth."

The review of the evidence suggests that while some of the traditional channels by which inequality affects growth have solid theoretical backing, empirical evidence is elusive. Intuitive and historically verified growth-accounting methods predict that if inequality, through its impact on diminished educational opportunity, leads to a less-well-educated workforce against a counterfactual with less inequality, growth will be diminished. But for a number of reasons stated in the text, there is no correlation, even with the requisite lags between trends in inequality and trends in labor quality.

Nor is there evidence, at least not a first blush, linking higher levels of income concentration to reduced consumer spending as theories of marginal propensity to consume or save would predict. One explanation for this seeming contradiction, however, is that sharply rising household equity and its wealth effects offset this effect, leading to far stronger consumer demand than would have otherwise prevailed.​

The short is that while there are reasons to attenuate income inequality's increase, none of them is macroeconomic. From a policy making standpoint then, the way to address income inequality's impacts is not with economic/fiscal/tax policy but with other policy measures. Those measures need to be things that, rather than making wealthy folks, compared to their current wealth/earnings increase rates, less wealthy/high-earning, facilitate folks who are insufficiently wealthy to enjoy a "decent" lifestyle wealthy/high-enough-earning so they can purchase for themselves a "decent" lifestyle.

Far and away the most efficient and effective ways to do that are (1) boosting access to education and boosting the standards students must meet to earn documents attesting to the nature and extent of educational content they've mastered, and (2) focusing federally funded investments in research of innovative "stuff" that is, in turn, freely shared (save for national security/defense research findings/lessons learned) with private sector innovators and investors who convert the research into productive capacity and jobs for the thus better educated workforce.

I repeat what I've elsewhere stated:

I don't care that my "neighbor" is far wealthier and higher-earning than I. I care that I'm wealthy and high-earning enough to enjoy a decent lifestyle. If my "neighbor" can enjoy a "more decent" lifestyle, well, good for them. That's about their contentment, not mine.​

It is with that ethos that I find ridiculous the current nature of rhetoric about income inequality.

Discussion about inequality of wealth often demonstrates the political illiteracy of the American people.

Instead of talking about unequal wealth, the politically illiterate talk about income. Instead of talking about unhealthy concentrations of power, the politically illiterate talk about envy and lifestyle

 

[VanceMack]

Walls are no defense

Yet rat politicians voted to build hundreds and hundreds of miles of them.

Walls alone are no defense. There needs to be consequence to the act of illegal entry. But the greatest detriment to security is the typical idiot leftist that not only opposes national security but literally WANTS open borders and mass illegal immigration.

 

[sangha]

I've noticed a lot of this. I've also notice the stat always seems to be given on it's own. I kept wondering if people thought it meant something else or led to another point, but again and again I see people mention inequality as if that alone explained why it was bad.

Inequalities of wealth are, by itself, not a problem. However, in a democracy where the ultimate political power is supposed to reside in We, the People, inequalities of wealth often lead to inequalities or political power which are a threat to the core principles on which our system of government is based on

 

[Keridan]

Inequalities of wealth are, by itself, not a problem. However, in a democracy where the ultimate political power is supposed to reside in We, the People, inequalities of wealth often lead to inequalities or political power which are a threat to the core principles on which our system of government is based on

Okay, thank you for clarifying. However, isn't this something that is much, much better suited by controlling campaign, finance, etc contributions to government and its officials? Certainly no one is arguing it's a good idea to be able to buy power in our government?


Just having the wealth doesn't mean the wealthy did something wrong to get it or bought government. If we use inequality as a reason to change the system and penalize those who have the money, we are punishing the many to stop the few.

 

[sangha]

That was clearly their intent by trying to strictly limit (rather than to simply balance) the powers of the federal government via the Constitution. To get around that limitation, congress (with the aid of the POTUS and consent of the SCOTUS) simply deems that whatever it finds to be "important" can become a new federal power (department, agency or program). My main complaint is not with the occasional violation of the Constitutionally defined separation of powers (within the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government), but with the constant and relentless increase in the scope and expense of the federal government powers.

No, with but a few exceptions, the Constitution does not "strictly limit...the powers of the federal government "

For example, the Constitution allows the government to provide for the General Welfare, but nowhere does it define what that means, nor does it place any limits on that power. It allows for the regulation of interstate commerce, but again, with no definition or limitations to that power. It grants the Judicial branch "all Judicial powers" and again, without definition or limitations

Everyone has the right to their own opinions but not to their own facts. You are free to believe that the feds should have less power but your belief that the Constitution supports your belief is an intellectual conceit designed to make you feel better about your position

 

[sangha]

Which M4A bill does that?

Does what?

 

[sangha]

Yet rat politicians voted to build hundreds and hundreds of miles of them.

Walls alone are no defense. There needs to be consequence to the act of illegal entry. But the greatest detriment to security is the typical idiot leftist that not only opposes national security but literally WANTS open borders and mass illegal immigration.

Well, if politicians voted for it, it must be the smart thing to do :roll:

 

[ttwtt78640]

Does what?

Eliminates your "mythical free market forces". Obviously, the only way to eliminate "free market forces" (mythical or otherwise) is to create a monopoly (or cartel) and then try to regulate (constrain?) the ultimate power of that monopoly (or cartel).

 

[sangha]

Okay, thank you for clarifying. However, isn't this something that is much, much better suited by controlling campaign, finance, etc contributions to government and its officials? Certainly no one is arguing it's a good idea to be able to buy power in our government?


Just having the wealth doesn't mean the wealthy did something wrong to get it or bought government. If we use inequality as a reason to change the system and penalize those who have the money, we are punishing the many to stop the few.

Yes, campaign finance reform is certainly one of the most important ways to limit political corruption but campaign contributions aren't the only way to corrupt a government.

And there certainly are people who think there should be no limits on the ability of the wealthy to use money to interfere with the political process

I know of no people who advocate for any limit on how much money someone can make or have. If they exist, their numbers are so small that they are politically impotent. Arguing against such limits is the intellectual equivalent of arguing against death panels and the banning of hamburgers

 

[Bum]

You say parasite as if it's a Bad Thing but you have billions of them in your body and you would die without them

You are confusing parasitic with symbiotic.....parasites are never a good thing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yet rat politicians voted to build hundreds and hundreds of miles of them.

Walls alone are no defense. There needs to be consequence to the act of illegal entry. But the greatest detriment to security is the typical idiot leftist that not only opposes national security but literally WANTS open borders and mass illegal immigration.

That (bolded above) is what is seriously lacking for illegal immigrants - job availability, free K-12 education, EMTALA, catch and release, birthright citizenship (adding the option for "safety net" assistance) and sanctuary city/state policy makes blocking entry (and re-entry) very difficult.

 

[GDViking]

What was the procedure?

Two doctors had diagnosed meningitis, she needed a spinal tap to confirm, a d Fi d whether it was viral or bacterial.

She was in very bad condition, 105 fever and neither of the docs felt comfortable doing it on someone that young so they called another doctor who was working the ER a d he said he could, then after we got there he refused when he learned I was betw noeen insurance...

 

[ataraxia]

Hmm...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An idealistic proposal constructed in the aftermath of one of the world's great atrocities. The sting of Bergen Belsen and Hiroshima were still tangible. Stalin and Mao were still in the suburbs of the "civilized" world and Ghandi...poor Ghandi had laid down his life for peace. It was incumbent on the world to never again visit the horrors of the previous 40 years. Thus, the UDHR was to be the salvation of mankind. It was a nice, warm blanket for us all to wrap ourselves in. Unfortunately, it was merely a wish list...a thing to which one might aspire but not something that would realistically be attained.

Well, it wouldn't be attained unless sufficient international pressure was put on the parties involved to force compliance. And therein lay the problem. When liberty becomes a state mandate it ceases to be liberty.

As long as the UDHR is treated as a goal we can have liberty. Once it is treated as a requirement we have crossed into the territory of tyranny.

OK, sure. It’s an ideal to work towards. But it was in response to a criticism I often hear from conservatives that socialists want everyone to have more and more free stuff and a BMW in everyone’s garage. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case for most people even calling themselves socialists today. If you want to know the general framework for American socialism today, like for example the Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren variety, it’s something like the Universal declaration of human rights, or the maxim “socialism for the absolute necessities,capitalism for everything else”.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Yet rat politicians voted to build hundreds and hundreds of miles of them.

Walls alone are no defense. There needs to be consequence to the act of illegal entry. But the greatest detriment to security is the typical idiot leftist that not only opposes national security but literally WANTS open borders and mass illegal immigration.

Man, you got this completely backwards.

The penalty needs not reside on the person coming in, but on the person providing the incentive to come in. That said, penalties on those coming in would only be effective hand in hand with the following:

If we would severely punish businesses who enter into the practice of hiring illegal workers, this problem would go away overnight. And when I say severely, I mean exactly that. First offense would be a slap on the wrist, the next would be all but putting them out of business, and the third would be exactly that.

If there were no jobs for them to get, there would be no incentive to come here. It really is that simple.

Its not those on the left who are super invested in not making E-verify the law of the land and actually giving it some teeth. Bet you can't figure out why those who are opposed to that are actually opposed to it. The answer, if you are wondering, is because it would force all those business owners to pay an American a fair wage to do the same work, and that would cut into profits. So they play both sides instead....bitching about illegal immigration ruining the country, all while hiring illegals to keep costs down.

Leftists indeed...

 

[Xelor]

Accordingly I reference the following study: "The Impact of Inequality on Growth."

The review of the evidence suggests that while some of the traditional channels by which inequality affects growth have solid theoretical backing, empirical evidence is elusive. Intuitive and historically verified growth-accounting methods predict that if inequality, through its impact on diminished educational opportunity, leads to a less-well-educated workforce against a counterfactual with less inequality, growth will be diminished. But for a number of reasons stated in the text, there is no correlation, even with the requisite lags between trends in inequality and trends in labor quality.

Nor is there evidence, at least not a first blush, linking higher levels of income concentration to reduced consumer spending as theories of marginal propensity to consume or save would predict. One explanation for this seeming contradiction, however, is that sharply rising household equity and its wealth effects offset this effect, leading to far stronger consumer demand than would have otherwise prevailed.​

...

Discussion about inequality of wealth often demonstrates the political illiteracy of the American people.

Instead of talking about unequal wealth, the politically illiterate talk about income. Instead of talking about unhealthy concentrations of power, the politically illiterate talk about envy and lifestyle

What is wealth/income concentration? It is nothing more or less than unspent income, and the only way to retain wealth is to first obtain it as income. That is why people talk about income inequality.

Plain old economic, finance and accountancy ignoramuses, lack anything of gravitas to say themselves, make unsubstantiated assertions about the nature of other economists, financiers and accountants' analysis and remarks. And even when presented with such analysis, they fail to assail it directly with regard to the actual research methodology of said research. And why do economic, finance and accountancy ignoramuses do so? Because they don't know what the hell they're talking about; they just know what they want to believe.


Although I don't welcome higher taxes on income -- nobody wants to pay more taxes -- I can acquiesce to them to a point. A wealth tax, however, is not something I'll ever cotton to.

There are several reasons why, but they all accrue from my realizing that high wealth and high income are two very different things. For instance:

• My nonagenarian mother is, by most folks' reckoning, a wealthy woman. When Dad first retired, she and he were indeed wealthy if having $50M in assets is the measure of being so. They owned three homes, two in pricey locales and another in a rural setting but it has a sizable parcel of land accompanying it. Those assets alone comprised a material plurality of their wealth. They also had various financial investments and a couple rental properties that did produce a modest income.
  
  As their dotage progressed, they did what most folks do: gradually liquidate the principal in their financial instruments. They did that because despite being comfortable in terms of wealth, the receipts from their investments and rental income needed supplementing if they were to afford themselves. That, of course, wasn't an issue because that's the point of having them.
  
  Now, let's assume there is a 3% tax on assets, rather than income, of, say, $50M. That's $1.5M! Well, for Christ's sake! They weren't drawing $1.5M+/year in income from their assets. Not even a sum remotely close to it; not even close to half that sum.
  
  Old retired people, no matter how much wealth they're "sitting on" and even if they live quite comfortably, just don't spend millions of dollars a year to support themselves, nor do they need or want to. Simply, the tax on their wealth would have cost more than the whole of their other annual expenses/spending for more than five years.
  
  The problem is substantively the same -- even at low wealth tax rates like 3%, one can very easily have to pay more in wealth taxes than one has earns in the year. That's just stupid policy.

As one can see from the illustration above, a wealth tax, unlike income taxes, stand to force people to pay more in taxes than they actually receive in income. Whatever form of taxation a nation might implement, a tax that exceeds one's current income is a tax that makes no sense.

If folks feel the need to increase the tax rates and reduce preferences applicable to high income earners, well, so be it. But taxing assets, well, no. Who the hell would concur with a tax that forces people to draw more income to pay the tax than they draw to support themselves? Nobody but financial, economic and accountancy ignoramuses.

 

[Lutherf]

OK, sure. It’s an ideal to work towards. But it was in response to a criticism I often hear from conservatives that socialists want everyone to have more and more free stuff and a BMW in everyone’s garage. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case for most people even calling themselves socialists today. If you want to know the general framework for American socialism today, like for example the Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren variety, it’s something like the Universal declaration of human rights, or the maxim “socialism for the absolute necessities,capitalism for everything else”.

There is a lot of criticism about the "free" handouts. There SHOULD be a lot of criticism about the "free" handouts. The main point of criticism should be that they aren't "free".

Look, I know that everyone knows that the programs really aren't free. I know that using the term just makes life easier. It's a concept that people who don't pay fr the services can wrap their heads around and it kind of lessens the blow for the people who actually are paying. But it also obfuscates the reality of what's happening.

When we provide certain of these social safety net services what is really happening is that we're taking away a little freedom from one group and we're handing it to another group. If the transfer is done voluntarily that's fine because the party that's providing the service is exercising their own freedom of choice. When the transfer is mandated that freedom of choice is lost. See, all these "Democratic Socialists" like to talk about this stuff as if it's merely matter of money. They like to say "Bob has all this money and he doesn't need it but Suzie does need it and Bob is just being mean". Maybe that's true. I won't ever say that I know what's in Bob's mind so maybe he is just being mean. However, that argument is, first, immaterial and, second, only part of the story.

If Bob and Suzie are both entitled to equal freedom then taking Bob's money and handing it to Suzie is actually talking some of Bob's FREEDOM and handing it to Suzie. That's one of the main reasons we argue against the social welfare state.

Here's the other reason we argue against that kind of thing.

If the state is the sole source of certain services then they have taken away our freedom to choose what services we receive, how we receive them, when we receive them, how we can take corrective action against the services, etc. We have, if we allow state centric solutions to our social problems, given up our freedom to effectively control, manage, develop and innovate those services. We've LIMITED our opportunities to provide social benefits and when we limit opportunity, again, we limit freedom.

 

[apdst]

Two doctors had diagnosed meningitis, she needed a spinal tap to confirm, a d Fi d whether it was viral or bacterial.

She was in very bad condition, 105 fever and neither of the docs felt comfortable doing it on someone that young so they called another doctor who was working the ER a d he said he could, then after we got there he refused when he learned I was betw noeen insurance...

You shoulda sued the dog **** out of them.