I knew this for some time. So much time in fact that watching it here was almost laughable. I think too many hold onto that and aren't willing toto take into consideration CWD's question "How do we fix that."
My Answer is : "Lean closer to socialism."
But everytime that S word comes up one of our two F words come up. "Freedom"
I don't understand why but we use Freedom as an excuse for amny many things. Many of the middle and lower class gives the upper class and the upper 1% an excuse to have that, why? Because we want 'freedoms' we want the ability to do what we want when we want with little to no one restricting us. Freedom is good, but limited freedom may yeild a mroe positive lifestyle.
A few days ago someone asked me. "Would you be okay with Big Brother being invovled with everything in your life." My response, as scary as this sounds was. "Yes I would."
Because if the standard of living went up, and became such that the poorest of americans made more than 23,750 then our poor is in poverty as of the latest census and analyssis.
To add to this I ahve no need for overwhleming freedoms, especailly if by limiting myself my fellow man can benifit. So yes i think increased taxes, that SACLE AS YOU GET MORE MONEY, should be the course of action. Yes I think closing tax loopwholes is a goodidea.
However the issue is this. We ahve a greedy, lazy, unfortunate group of 1% They are going to jack their stuff up, put hte lower class out of work, and mess with the plan so they can keep their amount of wealth. For a change to trully occur, we have to prevent that. Therein we are talking of a more controling more abrassive goverment.
Or so we are in my eyes, which we all know aren't htat good.
o.o
Honestly, the things you see through your eyes worry me.
First off, the lean towards socialism, while becoming more and more popular to the opinions of the left, does not work. If you'd like to see examples of this, look at the EU. Look at the state of the Euro and how it's depreciating. Or if you want a really over the top example, look at Greece. It's not a sustainable because all of those hand outs have to be payed for somehow. The beauty of capitalism is it puts the means to cover one's needs in the hands of the individual, so long as it's allowed to work.
Second off, You clearly haven't had to deal with public sector much. One of the downfalls of the lean towards a more socialist approach is you remove the spirit of competition from the equation in a big way. One of the biggest boons of our country is the way technology is embraced here. Competition between markets fuels a thriving economy. Due to the profit motive, companies have incentive to produce better products and services than competitors which in turn creates jobs for citizens. On top of that, as citizens we get the benefit of this in getting the opportunity to seek out reviews and find the best goods and services that are available.
In a market dominated by the private sector, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Why?
Because you as a citizen (and as the entire collective of the nation) no longer have those chooses available. Everything is contracted, controlled and regulated by the government. As a result of loosing the profit motive, the quality of those goods and services decline. It's the reason why a large large amount of goods and services are contracted out by the public sector to independent contractors today. Things like food service, Accounting, and even war fighting today is done more often than not by Private companies hired by the government. Why? Because they can afford to do a better job.
A few days ago someone asked me. "Would you be okay with Big Brother being invovled with everything in your life." My response, as scary as this sounds was. "Yes I would."
Because if the standard of living went up, and became such that the poorest of americans made more than 23,750 then our poor is in poverty as of the latest census and analyssis.
I am going to try my hardest to not be rude responding to this. If it comes off that way, I apologize because it's not intended.
As a vet, this statement angers me.
People have fought and died defending the rights that you and several people like you seem very willing to throw away. The sad thing is that you're willing to say these things because you haven't seen the kind of situations that are created when rights like the ability to speak for yourself, the ability to defend yourself and the ability to be free from unrestricted search and seizure. It's those same rights that give us the ability to have this conversation in the first place. You veer from that, and you give up basic human rights instituted by God.
This quote's going to piss off some of you, but it applies.
"Most people never have to do anything truly hard their entire lives. Their idea of overcoming Adversity is to pull an all-night study session, or to work a little overtime, or not be able to afford the leopard-skin pants they've always wanted and actually have to save for something, rather than get the instant gratification for their every need being attended to. Kids are not allowed to lose, so there is a trophy for everyone. Hurtful words are now being equated to physical violence, which is comical. We go to war and only .45 percent of the population answers the call over eleven years. There is no rise in taxes to cover the two wars we were engaged in so the average citizen doesn't suffer at all. Increasingly, we're told that we are the smartest, most handsome, most amazing people in the whole wide world even if we haven't done a damn thing to earn that status.
In short, people have no idea what sacrifice looks like anymore."
You give up those basic rights granted to you by a slip of paper written by a bunch of dead guys 200+ years ago, and you piss on everyone who came before who gave it all so you could say something like that. There is no such thing as overwhelming freedoms. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a package deal.
Anywho...
Tax loopholes. At the moment, perfectly legal. I believe I mentioned something about raising taxes on the rich before hand...
First off as for Raising Taxes for people who fall into the top percents of the wealth earned in the american economy, that's already being done. With the Tax changes put forward in the Obama Administration anyone who earns 200k or more per year will now be liable for greater taxation.
The argument against that is pretty simple. Who are the people who earn those incomes?
Business owners.
What is the most common form of business in america at this time?
Small businesses - sole proprietorships.
What do small businesses do?
They hire people.
What are small businesses more likely to not do if a large portion of their proceeds are cut by the government?
Hire people. If they have to choose to stay in business or lay folks off, you better believe they're going to stay afloat.
So... yeah. Long story short I strongly disagree with you Zor. Didn't mean to call you out there.
Let's bring something super related in to this:
If Huey Long hadn't been assassinated, would anyone have voted for him over FDR in the primary?
Also, Cos, I'll add in, "reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act," to things that we need to do, because why the fuck not.
I actually never knew about the Glass-Steagall act prior to this conversation. To be honest from the look of it, I kind of like it. It might have prevented this from happening:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceyg...the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/
To be honest I'm not a big fan of the FED, I personally believe that Quantitative Easing 3 should be illegal as each dollar printed is worth less than the one before. But as soon as I say that, I get written off as a crazy libertarian. C'est la vi.
I'll have to give some thought, Some of Long's political stances were super interesting, especially for the time. At that point the nation was still in the mindset of Classical Economic Theory where the Public and private sectors don't mix. They were in the process of moving to a Kanesian approach which is what we're sitting on today. Honestly I would have loved to sit in a crowd and listen to the debate when he discussed his "Share the Wealth" policy.
Denying that his program was
socialist, Long stated that his ideological inspiration for the plan came not from
Karl Marx but from the
Bible and the
Declaration of Independence. "
Communism? Hell no!" he said, "This plan is the only defense this country's got against communism."
[30] In 1934, Long held a public debate with
Norman Thomas, the leader of the
Socialist Party of America, on the merits of Share Our Wealth versus socialism.
[31]
