I won't go into every specific, but I can give some notable examples.
The President's current political vacation jumps to mind. You can add it up with the tabs our illustrious executive cabinet members, representatives, and senators rack up when they take PR trips on the public dime. But truth be told, whatever there is to be gained in this current trip to India, it is certainly not enough to justify its outrageous cost to the American public. ...
You see, I don't think you know what you are talking about. You don't even know what is to be gained but you label President Obama's Asian trip a "vacation" and talk about the "outrageous" cost, a cost which you don't know, but which, in reality, we can be certain, does not even amount to a tiny drop in a bucket.
This is true of most people who rail about waste in government. They pick out little "outrageous" items and claim it's a waste without having any basis of even the most elementary cost benefit analysis. This is just knee-jerk anti-government, anti-tax talk with no grounding in reality.
It's an attitude founded on ignorance and arrogance, and, unfortunately, all too prevalent today. Meanwhile, our country turns into a 3rd-rate banana republic because no one is willing to look beyond their own selfish needs. (Selfish needs that end up costing most people a lot more in the long run.)
It's an attitude founded on ignorance and arrogance, and, unfortunately, all too prevalent today.
There's the pot calling the kettle black. If the figures from this trip are ever made public (which they won't be because this administration would no doubt be humiliated at the beating they would receive in the public) we'll see who thinks costs like these are insignificant drops in the bucket.
And programs that cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars but never work even after years or decades of development are the very definition of waste. And they are numerous within our government. You can only tax a person's dollar once, but these are the projects that keep on taking from America. It doesn't take a genius to understand that when you put billions in and get nothing out YOU LOST!
Feel free to keep your head in the sand if you like.
This has turned into a debate between talk radio logic and everything else.
And perhaps a little more heated than is necessary (which is to say they really needn't be heated at all). I'm sorry for the harsh tone. Perhaps the one thing we can agree on is that we'll just have to disagree.
And perhaps a little more heated than is necessary (which is to say they really needn't be heated at all).
I thing that's bound to happen in a discussion like this where people tend to be very passionate about their believes. Talking politics, religion, Macs vs PCs (which is a bit religious in nature as well, innit?!?); usually these get a bit heated
Unbelievable nieve these comments are. I honestly pity your outlook on the world. Communism has been shown to destroy nations, yet you postulate that North America become communist?
What I'm advocating is a fair distribution of wealth to allow a higher minimum standard of living rather than individuals living with wealth beyond there needs while huge numbers live in poverty. I pity the fact that you deride fairness as a communist regime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhende7
I think what a lot of these people don't realize, is that all these wealthy venture capitalists are there to help ideas grow. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak didn't have the necessary capital to start Apple, so they turned to Mike Markkula (an affluent angel investor).
Good ideas should be allowed to develop without the need to pander to investors. You'd rather have a system where a multi-billionaire who makes his wealth from investing in oil companies decides on the success or failure of someone who has invented a renewable energy source that would cut the valuation of oil company stock overnight?
Again, there should be an unbiased system of investment for startup companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhende7
Or, Buffet could administer 37B directly to these truly needy individuals?
That's a naive assumption right there. Every charitable foundation has overheads:
What makes you think donating to the Gates Foundation is going to be any better?
Besides, I've said quite clearly that I don't condemn Buffet giving the money to charity, just that no single individual should decide what happens with such a large amount of money. I'm not condemning Buffet himself as he said:
"I am not an enthusiast of dynastic wealth, particularly when the alternative is six billion people having that much poorer hands in life than we have, having a chance to benefit from the money"
My problem is that if he hadn't been so inclined, such vast amounts of wealth could have been used to devastating effects when it's controlled by the feelings of one person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual
And while it's all well and good to say that people should be selfless by nature, it's simply not reality.
Which is why they shouldn't control vast amounts of wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual
The sooner we accept facts like this rather than trying to force the larger part of humanity to change through some means of government control, the better off we will all be.
At least with government, there's a certain degree of accountability. If they aren't funding education or businesses etc then they can be criticised for it. An individual can do whatever they personally feel is best even if that acts against society as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdawso
Better left to Political Outsider, then a lengthy political statement. Typical - rules don't apply to the ruling class.
To some extent but the topic discussed investment, someone decided to use that to directly insult a political figure. The thread topic is obviously going to have some link to political systems but statements like "butthead BO" cross the line into unnecessary territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Do you think that when people sell personal property, something should be limiting how much they can make from that sale?
How about when you sell your house? You should be limited to what you can get for it.
There are exemptions for personal property. If you have two or more homes then yes you should be limited by what you can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt
Nor would I. However, your implied comparison between Mr. Buffet and "someone who wins the lottery" is insulting beyond description.
His success had had little to do with luck. You should educate yourself about him - I suggest the book "The Warren Buffet Way". I'm not being facetious - it's a very good read.
It doesn't have to be about luck and you're right, it's not comparable to winning the lottery from the investment angle, I was talking about the process by which money is acquired. The investment angle is closer to a professional gambler who researches the system being invested in to ensure success. I accept your critique though and I will read that book and educate myself about his process more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt
Where does wealth originate? Who should be able to accumulate and control it? How much should one be able to accumulate and control? Is there a wealth limit? What is it? Who decides what this limit should be? Hundreds of millions of people live on about a dollar a day. Perhaps they should decide?
Before we had currency, people would exchange goods or services. When this system was abstracted to be about the digits on the cash machine when you put your pin number in, the whole direction of the system changed, especially when money makes money. It changes the focus from 'what service or goods can I offer for the best return' to 'how can I get that number on my bank account to go up'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF
The issue is not whether is it right for someone to control great wealth. The issue is how they get it and what they do with it. Steve, Bill, Steve and Warren have benefited us all. In contrast, the bankers on Wall Street gave out poisoned candy on Halloween.
But that's still an uncontrolled system where you just have to hope the right people acquire the wealth and it doesn't work because generally good people don't have the desire to acquire vast amounts of wealth. That's perhaps too much a of generalism but isn't it selfish to say 'I deserve to be the sole owner and decider over what happens to $x billion of wealth'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J
Unless he had been able to amass that wealth, those charities would remain less funded, unable to help as many people.
Wrong assumption. I didn't attack Buffet's decision to be charitable, just that he was the sole decider. Charities should be helped not by some vague hope that someone nice like Buffet comes along to do it. It should be by law that people worldwide are granted a minimum standard of living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous
It's human nature to assume that the successful, "had what it takes," but lots of people have what it takes and simply don't have the same luck.
Excellent post, I would agree with it entirely. One aspect of acquiring wealth compared to say minimum wage earners that I contend with is the notion of working equally hard to acquire it. You may work an 80 hour week like a small business owner but if you make $1b in that time when they make $20k then the valuations of the work are entirely disproportionate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual
Just let the rich handle it, because we know they have the money!
Why do you have an issue with that? If it doesn't affect their standard of living, what's the problem?
... I was talking about the process by which money is acquired.
... Before we had currency, people would exchange goods or services. When this system was abstracted to be about the digits on the cash machine when you put your pin number in, the whole direction of the system changed, especially when money makes money.
Sure, but before you get distracted with reasons currencies were developed, don't make the mistake of equating "currency" and "wealth". They are unrelated concepts.
It seems to me that your statement about money "being acquired" suggests that you believe wealth is something taken from one entity and delivered to another. It can be, just as money may be redistributed, but doing so does not create wealth. Currency can be created (easily), but doing so does not create wealth either. In fact, such acts are far more likely to diminish it, and undermine the possibility for true wealth creation that results in economic growth and prosperity.
Capitalism isn't a closed system, like some chemical reaction in a test tube. Thinking of it in such terms will prove incredibly limiting. Unfortunately it is all too common, even among those appointed to positions that require such knowledge.
I apologize if this mischaracterizes what you think - a forum like this removes several dimensions from effective communications. Thanks for keeping an open mind.
Why do you have an issue with that? If it doesn't affect their standard of living, what's the problem?
I take issue with it because I don't believe it will solve the fundamental problems that will be the ultimate undoing of our nation: the overspending of a poorly constrained government and poor corporate policies. It's a band-aid fix for a gushing wound. I'm not saying that raising taxes on the individual will always be wrong, but it should be one of the last steps taken. Our national debt is at the point where we couldn't pay it off if we managed to obtain every amount of currency in circulation worldwide. We're going to need a lot more billionaires in order for higher taxes to be the singular right answer.
The issues that are seriously hurting us have less to do with the fact that there are a few people with a lot of money and more to do with the fact that our government has crafted terrible policies that incentivize companies leaving our shores for cheap-labor and tax havens. In addition, companies like Google use loopholes to pay only 2.4% corporate tax, and it's 100% legal. It's much easier to attack individuals because it gives you a face to focus the blame on (and lets face it, a series of rainbow colored letters doesn't really seem that threatening), but there are dozens of reasons our economy is in the tank right now and blaming it all on the rich people seems like such a cop-out (no offense). The rich didn't screw up the California budget so badly that the fed is spotting them $40 million a day to cover unemployment. The rich didn't vote on the policies that allowed China to become our main supplier of rare earth metals, essentially opening us up to blackmail should we try to bring technology production back to our country. The rich didn't enact environmental standards so stringent that it is nigh impossible to build any sort of factory or fabrication plant in the parts of the nation where they would provide the most gain. Unless you mean to lump the lifelong glad-handers and back-slappers we can't seem to get out of office in with the rich.
And if the government is influenced by those with money, is that the rich person's fault or the government's fault? I contend that it is the latter. Even if the rich gave them the shovel, nobody is forcing our leaders to dig the hole. If some can say we should live in a world where we should all be less selfish, then I contend that we should all live in a world where the people we trust to provide for the general welfare are not corrupt. We deserve people that understand that funding education and infrastructure are important rather than those who sell their votes to the highest bidder and pile on the pork so that they can bolster their resumes for those re-election campaigns. But being a responsible leader just doesn't sell to all of the American public it seems. These puppets will only be held accountable with action, not criticism. If we continue to throw our money at them and let them continue to squander it without fear of retribution, then shame on us.
I take issue with it because I don't believe it will solve the fundamental problems that will be the ultimate undoing of our nation: the overspending of a poorly constrained government and poor corporate policies...
The problems of this country have little or nothing to do with overspending. At present, the main problem is actually underspending. The economic problems in this country have everything to do with the voodoo economics introduced by Ronald Reagan where people believe that relentless tax cuts and policies the result in the redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich are actually rational. This country is in the dire financial condition it is in precisely because it has largely followed the disastrous economic policies of the right over the last 3 decades. It was a nice fairy tale that appealed to the electorate, but how they can continue to believe this nonsense when the enormity of just how wrong it was is staring them in the face is simply astonishing.
The problems of this country have little or nothing to do with overspending. At present, the main problem is actually underspending.
I suppose that depends on your outlook. I see a nation that has to beg to borrow now because we haven't been able to balance a federal budget in decades. I see over a trillion dollars in added debt each year because of this. What are we going to do when we raise the taxes and then still have to borrow just to make ends meet? Even when the wars are over, you're only saving $140 billion per year, and thus still in the red.
I suppose that depends on your outlook. I see a nation that has to beg to borrow now because we haven't been able to balance a federal budget in decades...
Yes, and that all started when we began, under Ronald Reagan, to use insane tax cuts for the rich as our primary, often only, economic policy. The problems of the federal deficit and national debt are directly the result of right wing economic insanity. But, now, in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression is not the time to tighten the purse strings. Doing so will just ensure a slow and anemic recovery.
I suppose that depends on your outlook. I see a nation that has to beg to borrow now because we haven't been able to balance a federal budget in decades. I see over a trillion dollars in added debt each year because of this. What are we going to do when we raise the taxes and then still have to borrow just to make ends meet? Even when the wars are over, you're only saving $140 billion per year, and thus still in the red.
The fundamental problem with this argument is that nobody in either political party is seriously concerned about reducing deficit spending, let alone, balancing the budget. Republicans are great for jawboning the issue, but their performance is certainly less than convincing. Even the Republican cosponsors of the bill creating the Deficit Reduction Commission voted against it. Apparently they're not even in favor of talking about deficit reduction, except when they're out on the campaign trail, when they don't have to own up to what would have to be cut to get there. You can slice the cynicism with a knife.
Yes, and that all started when we began, under Ronald Reagan, to use insane tax cuts for the rich as our primary, often only, economic policy. The problems of the federal deficit and national debt are directly the result of right wing economic insanity. But, now, in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression is not the time to tighten the purse strings. Doing so will just ensure a slow and anemic recovery.
We'll see what happens then. The purse strings are likely going to be tighter for the remainder of Obama's term, and probably even tighter in two years. If the recovery fails, then drinks are on me (assuming there are still bars in the end of days). Deal?
The fundamental problem with this argument is that nobody in either political party is seriously concerned about reducing deficit spending, let alone, balancing the budget. Republicans are great for jawboning the issue, but their performance is certainly less than convincing. Even the Republican cosponsors of the bill creating the Deficit Reduction Commission voted against it. Apparently they're not even in favor of talking about deficit reduction, except when they're out on the campaign trail, when they don't have to own up to what would have to be cut to get there. You can slice the cynicism with a knife.
This is very true. With one exception, the deficit and national debt has ballooned under every administration we've had since 1980. That exception was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who actually tried to pay down the national debt. A policy that was promptly reversed in the next, Republican, administration, where the policy, once again, was massive tax cuts for the rich, with no benefit to anyone else and, once again, deficits and the debt ballooned. Every Republican economic policy that's been enacted, from tax cuts to deregulation, over the past 30 years has been an abject failure, and led us to where we are today. Yet, for some reason, some people seem to believe that, magically, it will work now to get us out of this mess.
The fundamental problem with this argument is that nobody in either political party is seriously concerned about reducing deficit spending, let alone, balancing the budget. Republicans are great for jawboning the issue, but their performance is certainly less than convincing. Even the Republican cosponsors of the bill creating the Deficit Reduction Commission voted against it. Apparently they're not even in favor of talking about deficit reduction, except when they're out on the campaign trail, when they don't have to own up to what would have to be cut to get there. You can slice the cynicism with a knife.
Which is why I won't shill for either party. Nearly everybody that has a seat at the table has compromised the values they had when they decided to run for office for the sake of staying in office. Some of them never had values to begin with, but have silver tongues to convince us otherwise. So why are we in favor of giving them more money again? Right, because they're from the government, and they're here to help...
We'll see what happens then. The purse strings are likely going to be tighter for the remainder of Obama's term, and probably even tighter in two years. If the recovery fails, then drinks are on me (assuming there are still bars in the end of days). Deal?
You'll be buying for the millions of unemployed? We know what will happen, we've seen it all before in 1937.
Which is why I won't shill for either party. ... Right, because they're from the government, and they're here to help...
Yet, here you are, shilling for Republican economic policies.
If you elect people who think government can't or shouldn't do anything positive, do be surprised when the government doesn't do anything positive. Witness FEMA under both George Bushes (Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina).
Of course, the idea that the government can't do anything positive is contradicted by so many counterexamples, from the interstate highway system, to FEMA when it is properly managed, to the FDA, USDA, EPA, OSHA and CPSC keeping dangerous substances and products out of the environment, off the store shelves, out of your medicine cabinet, and out of your workplace or home, that to say something like that just indicates that you have not actually thought about it in an intelligent way but are only parroting the catch phrases of the radical right.
EDIT: Let's throw in a few more examples of the government helping: The air traffic control system, law enforcement, fire departments (at least with a government run FD, as opposed to a private subscription FD, they don't stand around and watch your house burn down if you haven't paid up), sanitation, sewer & water services, the CDC & NIH, ... I could go on and on and on. The idea that the government isn't helping you is beyond stupid.
Comments
Spain has enough solar power to replace one nuclear plant..
What do they do on rainy days?
As is usual: go on strike!
I won't go into every specific, but I can give some notable examples.
The President's current political vacation jumps to mind. You can add it up with the tabs our illustrious executive cabinet members, representatives, and senators rack up when they take PR trips on the public dime. But truth be told, whatever there is to be gained in this current trip to India, it is certainly not enough to justify its outrageous cost to the American public. ...
You see, I don't think you know what you are talking about. You don't even know what is to be gained but you label President Obama's Asian trip a "vacation" and talk about the "outrageous" cost, a cost which you don't know, but which, in reality, we can be certain, does not even amount to a tiny drop in a bucket.
This is true of most people who rail about waste in government. They pick out little "outrageous" items and claim it's a waste without having any basis of even the most elementary cost benefit analysis. This is just knee-jerk anti-government, anti-tax talk with no grounding in reality.
It's an attitude founded on ignorance and arrogance, and, unfortunately, all too prevalent today. Meanwhile, our country turns into a 3rd-rate banana republic because no one is willing to look beyond their own selfish needs. (Selfish needs that end up costing most people a lot more in the long run.)
It's an attitude founded on ignorance and arrogance, and, unfortunately, all too prevalent today.
There's the pot calling the kettle black. If the figures from this trip are ever made public (which they won't be because this administration would no doubt be humiliated at the beating they would receive in the public) we'll see who thinks costs like these are insignificant drops in the bucket.
And programs that cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars but never work even after years or decades of development are the very definition of waste. And they are numerous within our government. You can only tax a person's dollar once, but these are the projects that keep on taking from America. It doesn't take a genius to understand that when you put billions in and get nothing out YOU LOST!
Feel free to keep your head in the sand if you like.
This has turned into a debate between talk radio logic and everything else.
And perhaps a little more heated than is necessary (which is to say they really needn't be heated at all). I'm sorry for the harsh tone. Perhaps the one thing we can agree on is that we'll just have to disagree.
And perhaps a little more heated than is necessary (which is to say they really needn't be heated at all).
I thing that's bound to happen in a discussion like this where people tend to be very passionate about their believes. Talking politics, religion, Macs vs PCs (which is a bit religious in nature as well, innit?!?); usually these get a bit heated
This has turned into a debate between talk radio logic and everything else.
Amen, brother. (Oops!)
Unbelievable nieve these comments are. I honestly pity your outlook on the world. Communism has been shown to destroy nations, yet you postulate that North America become communist?
What I'm advocating is a fair distribution of wealth to allow a higher minimum standard of living rather than individuals living with wealth beyond there needs while huge numbers live in poverty. I pity the fact that you deride fairness as a communist regime.
I think what a lot of these people don't realize, is that all these wealthy venture capitalists are there to help ideas grow. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak didn't have the necessary capital to start Apple, so they turned to Mike Markkula (an affluent angel investor).
Good ideas should be allowed to develop without the need to pander to investors. You'd rather have a system where a multi-billionaire who makes his wealth from investing in oil companies decides on the success or failure of someone who has invented a renewable energy source that would cut the valuation of oil company stock overnight?
Again, there should be an unbiased system of investment for startup companies.
Or, Buffet could administer 37B directly to these truly needy individuals?
That's a naive assumption right there. Every charitable foundation has overheads:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-charity.html
What makes you think donating to the Gates Foundation is going to be any better?
Besides, I've said quite clearly that I don't condemn Buffet giving the money to charity, just that no single individual should decide what happens with such a large amount of money. I'm not condemning Buffet himself as he said:
"I am not an enthusiast of dynastic wealth, particularly when the alternative is six billion people having that much poorer hands in life than we have, having a chance to benefit from the money"
My problem is that if he hadn't been so inclined, such vast amounts of wealth could have been used to devastating effects when it's controlled by the feelings of one person.
And while it's all well and good to say that people should be selfless by nature, it's simply not reality.
Which is why they shouldn't control vast amounts of wealth.
The sooner we accept facts like this rather than trying to force the larger part of humanity to change through some means of government control, the better off we will all be.
At least with government, there's a certain degree of accountability. If they aren't funding education or businesses etc then they can be criticised for it. An individual can do whatever they personally feel is best even if that acts against society as a whole.
Better left to Political Outsider, then a lengthy political statement. Typical - rules don't apply to the ruling class.
To some extent but the topic discussed investment, someone decided to use that to directly insult a political figure. The thread topic is obviously going to have some link to political systems but statements like "butthead BO" cross the line into unnecessary territory.
Do you think that when people sell personal property, something should be limiting how much they can make from that sale?
How about when you sell your house? You should be limited to what you can get for it.
There are exemptions for personal property. If you have two or more homes then yes you should be limited by what you can get.
Nor would I. However, your implied comparison between Mr. Buffet and "someone who wins the lottery" is insulting beyond description.
His success had had little to do with luck. You should educate yourself about him - I suggest the book "The Warren Buffet Way". I'm not being facetious - it's a very good read.
It doesn't have to be about luck and you're right, it's not comparable to winning the lottery from the investment angle, I was talking about the process by which money is acquired. The investment angle is closer to a professional gambler who researches the system being invested in to ensure success. I accept your critique though and I will read that book and educate myself about his process more.
Where does wealth originate? Who should be able to accumulate and control it? How much should one be able to accumulate and control? Is there a wealth limit? What is it? Who decides what this limit should be? Hundreds of millions of people live on about a dollar a day. Perhaps they should decide?
Before we had currency, people would exchange goods or services. When this system was abstracted to be about the digits on the cash machine when you put your pin number in, the whole direction of the system changed, especially when money makes money. It changes the focus from 'what service or goods can I offer for the best return' to 'how can I get that number on my bank account to go up'.
The issue is not whether is it right for someone to control great wealth. The issue is how they get it and what they do with it. Steve, Bill, Steve and Warren have benefited us all. In contrast, the bankers on Wall Street gave out poisoned candy on Halloween.
But that's still an uncontrolled system where you just have to hope the right people acquire the wealth and it doesn't work because generally good people don't have the desire to acquire vast amounts of wealth. That's perhaps too much a of generalism but isn't it selfish to say 'I deserve to be the sole owner and decider over what happens to $x billion of wealth'?
Unless he had been able to amass that wealth, those charities would remain less funded, unable to help as many people.
Wrong assumption. I didn't attack Buffet's decision to be charitable, just that he was the sole decider. Charities should be helped not by some vague hope that someone nice like Buffet comes along to do it. It should be by law that people worldwide are granted a minimum standard of living.
It's human nature to assume that the successful, "had what it takes," but lots of people have what it takes and simply don't have the same luck.
Excellent post, I would agree with it entirely. One aspect of acquiring wealth compared to say minimum wage earners that I contend with is the notion of working equally hard to acquire it. You may work an 80 hour week like a small business owner but if you make $1b in that time when they make $20k then the valuations of the work are entirely disproportionate.
Just let the rich handle it, because we know they have the money!
Why do you have an issue with that? If it doesn't affect their standard of living, what's the problem?
... I was talking about the process by which money is acquired.
... Before we had currency, people would exchange goods or services. When this system was abstracted to be about the digits on the cash machine when you put your pin number in, the whole direction of the system changed, especially when money makes money.
Sure, but before you get distracted with reasons currencies were developed, don't make the mistake of equating "currency" and "wealth". They are unrelated concepts.
It seems to me that your statement about money "being acquired" suggests that you believe wealth is something taken from one entity and delivered to another. It can be, just as money may be redistributed, but doing so does not create wealth. Currency can be created (easily), but doing so does not create wealth either. In fact, such acts are far more likely to diminish it, and undermine the possibility for true wealth creation that results in economic growth and prosperity.
Capitalism isn't a closed system, like some chemical reaction in a test tube. Thinking of it in such terms will prove incredibly limiting. Unfortunately it is all too common, even among those appointed to positions that require such knowledge.
I apologize if this mischaracterizes what you think - a forum like this removes several dimensions from effective communications. Thanks for keeping an open mind.
Why do you have an issue with that? If it doesn't affect their standard of living, what's the problem?
I take issue with it because I don't believe it will solve the fundamental problems that will be the ultimate undoing of our nation: the overspending of a poorly constrained government and poor corporate policies. It's a band-aid fix for a gushing wound. I'm not saying that raising taxes on the individual will always be wrong, but it should be one of the last steps taken. Our national debt is at the point where we couldn't pay it off if we managed to obtain every amount of currency in circulation worldwide. We're going to need a lot more billionaires in order for higher taxes to be the singular right answer.
The issues that are seriously hurting us have less to do with the fact that there are a few people with a lot of money and more to do with the fact that our government has crafted terrible policies that incentivize companies leaving our shores for cheap-labor and tax havens. In addition, companies like Google use loopholes to pay only 2.4% corporate tax, and it's 100% legal. It's much easier to attack individuals because it gives you a face to focus the blame on (and lets face it, a series of rainbow colored letters doesn't really seem that threatening), but there are dozens of reasons our economy is in the tank right now and blaming it all on the rich people seems like such a cop-out (no offense). The rich didn't screw up the California budget so badly that the fed is spotting them $40 million a day to cover unemployment. The rich didn't vote on the policies that allowed China to become our main supplier of rare earth metals, essentially opening us up to blackmail should we try to bring technology production back to our country. The rich didn't enact environmental standards so stringent that it is nigh impossible to build any sort of factory or fabrication plant in the parts of the nation where they would provide the most gain. Unless you mean to lump the lifelong glad-handers and back-slappers we can't seem to get out of office in with the rich.
And if the government is influenced by those with money, is that the rich person's fault or the government's fault? I contend that it is the latter. Even if the rich gave them the shovel, nobody is forcing our leaders to dig the hole. If some can say we should live in a world where we should all be less selfish, then I contend that we should all live in a world where the people we trust to provide for the general welfare are not corrupt. We deserve people that understand that funding education and infrastructure are important rather than those who sell their votes to the highest bidder and pile on the pork so that they can bolster their resumes for those re-election campaigns. But being a responsible leader just doesn't sell to all of the American public it seems. These puppets will only be held accountable with action, not criticism. If we continue to throw our money at them and let them continue to squander it without fear of retribution, then shame on us.
I take issue with it because I don't believe it will solve the fundamental problems that will be the ultimate undoing of our nation: the overspending of a poorly constrained government and poor corporate policies...
The problems of this country have little or nothing to do with overspending. At present, the main problem is actually underspending. The economic problems in this country have everything to do with the voodoo economics introduced by Ronald Reagan where people believe that relentless tax cuts and policies the result in the redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich are actually rational. This country is in the dire financial condition it is in precisely because it has largely followed the disastrous economic policies of the right over the last 3 decades. It was a nice fairy tale that appealed to the electorate, but how they can continue to believe this nonsense when the enormity of just how wrong it was is staring them in the face is simply astonishing.
The problems of this country have little or nothing to do with overspending. At present, the main problem is actually underspending.
I suppose that depends on your outlook. I see a nation that has to beg to borrow now because we haven't been able to balance a federal budget in decades. I see over a trillion dollars in added debt each year because of this. What are we going to do when we raise the taxes and then still have to borrow just to make ends meet? Even when the wars are over, you're only saving $140 billion per year, and thus still in the red.
I suppose that depends on your outlook. I see a nation that has to beg to borrow now because we haven't been able to balance a federal budget in decades...
Yes, and that all started when we began, under Ronald Reagan, to use insane tax cuts for the rich as our primary, often only, economic policy. The problems of the federal deficit and national debt are directly the result of right wing economic insanity. But, now, in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression is not the time to tighten the purse strings. Doing so will just ensure a slow and anemic recovery.
I suppose that depends on your outlook. I see a nation that has to beg to borrow now because we haven't been able to balance a federal budget in decades. I see over a trillion dollars in added debt each year because of this. What are we going to do when we raise the taxes and then still have to borrow just to make ends meet? Even when the wars are over, you're only saving $140 billion per year, and thus still in the red.
The fundamental problem with this argument is that nobody in either political party is seriously concerned about reducing deficit spending, let alone, balancing the budget. Republicans are great for jawboning the issue, but their performance is certainly less than convincing. Even the Republican cosponsors of the bill creating the Deficit Reduction Commission voted against it. Apparently they're not even in favor of talking about deficit reduction, except when they're out on the campaign trail, when they don't have to own up to what would have to be cut to get there. You can slice the cynicism with a knife.
Yes, and that all started when we began, under Ronald Reagan, to use insane tax cuts for the rich as our primary, often only, economic policy. The problems of the federal deficit and national debt are directly the result of right wing economic insanity. But, now, in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression is not the time to tighten the purse strings. Doing so will just ensure a slow and anemic recovery.
We'll see what happens then. The purse strings are likely going to be tighter for the remainder of Obama's term, and probably even tighter in two years. If the recovery fails, then drinks are on me (assuming there are still bars in the end of days). Deal?
The fundamental problem with this argument is that nobody in either political party is seriously concerned about reducing deficit spending, let alone, balancing the budget. Republicans are great for jawboning the issue, but their performance is certainly less than convincing. Even the Republican cosponsors of the bill creating the Deficit Reduction Commission voted against it. Apparently they're not even in favor of talking about deficit reduction, except when they're out on the campaign trail, when they don't have to own up to what would have to be cut to get there. You can slice the cynicism with a knife.
This is very true. With one exception, the deficit and national debt has ballooned under every administration we've had since 1980. That exception was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who actually tried to pay down the national debt. A policy that was promptly reversed in the next, Republican, administration, where the policy, once again, was massive tax cuts for the rich, with no benefit to anyone else and, once again, deficits and the debt ballooned. Every Republican economic policy that's been enacted, from tax cuts to deregulation, over the past 30 years has been an abject failure, and led us to where we are today. Yet, for some reason, some people seem to believe that, magically, it will work now to get us out of this mess.
The fundamental problem with this argument is that nobody in either political party is seriously concerned about reducing deficit spending, let alone, balancing the budget. Republicans are great for jawboning the issue, but their performance is certainly less than convincing. Even the Republican cosponsors of the bill creating the Deficit Reduction Commission voted against it. Apparently they're not even in favor of talking about deficit reduction, except when they're out on the campaign trail, when they don't have to own up to what would have to be cut to get there. You can slice the cynicism with a knife.
Which is why I won't shill for either party. Nearly everybody that has a seat at the table has compromised the values they had when they decided to run for office for the sake of staying in office. Some of them never had values to begin with, but have silver tongues to convince us otherwise. So why are we in favor of giving them more money again? Right, because they're from the government, and they're here to help...
We'll see what happens then. The purse strings are likely going to be tighter for the remainder of Obama's term, and probably even tighter in two years. If the recovery fails, then drinks are on me (assuming there are still bars in the end of days). Deal?
You'll be buying for the millions of unemployed? We know what will happen, we've seen it all before in 1937.
Which is why I won't shill for either party. ... Right, because they're from the government, and they're here to help...
Yet, here you are, shilling for Republican economic policies.
If you elect people who think government can't or shouldn't do anything positive, do be surprised when the government doesn't do anything positive. Witness FEMA under both George Bushes (Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina).
Of course, the idea that the government can't do anything positive is contradicted by so many counterexamples, from the interstate highway system, to FEMA when it is properly managed, to the FDA, USDA, EPA, OSHA and CPSC keeping dangerous substances and products out of the environment, off the store shelves, out of your medicine cabinet, and out of your workplace or home, that to say something like that just indicates that you have not actually thought about it in an intelligent way but are only parroting the catch phrases of the radical right.
EDIT: Let's throw in a few more examples of the government helping: The air traffic control system, law enforcement, fire departments (at least with a government run FD, as opposed to a private subscription FD, they don't stand around and watch your house burn down if you haven't paid up), sanitation, sewer & water services, the CDC & NIH, ... I could go on and on and on. The idea that the government isn't helping you is beyond stupid.