Originally posted by: Craig234
FYI, if it helps clear up the discussion, one of my views is that one of the huge blind spots for right-wing people is how they attribute all accumulation of wealth as assumed to be productive activity. Their blind spot is how concentrated wealth and power tend to accumulate wealth in ways that are not only not 'productive' to society but ultikately destruvtive to society, however benefical to the lucky few.
Such a blind spot corrupts a lot of the discussion if not pointed out.
So, it's somewhat helful to talk instead of our goals - areyou for increasing opportunity broadly, or are you for policies resulting in increased concentration of wealth, for example?
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
I can't view the PDF here, but did the guy proposing this have the initials BHO?
Originally posted by: Brigandier
I am sorry, but I am not a right wing puppet.
What incentive do individuals have to create their weath in California? They will more than likely see a larger benefit of going elsewhere to create their wealth, and California will suffer as a result.
Wealth creation is up to the individual, just ask Bill Gates. The boom of the nineties was the result of a lot of people creating wealth. Look at Mark Suckerberg and facebook, did society create that wealth? No, he marketed a product that resonates with his target customers and so it took off. The only thing that makes a capitalist society strong is the abundance of capitalists trying to make money. Society benecits as a whole when it is as easy as possible for those capitalists to build wealth. The government doesn't really give out jobs, capitalists do. It's almost as if you're under the assumption that the wealthyhelp no one on their way to the top. Companies and corpoartions EMPLOY people, they pay them, there is no slavery. So while all your social programs seek to elevate society, it will not work. It is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle.
Originally posted by: Sawyer
Craig you should really look into the mirror, you are all about right-wing this, republican that. Sure there are tons of crooks and misdeads on that sides, but you are so blindly by partisan politics it is unreal.
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Originally posted by: Craig234
FYI, if it helps clear up the discussion, one of my views is that one of the huge blind spots for right-wing people is how they attribute all accumulation of wealth as assumed to be productive activity. Their blind spot is how concentrated wealth and power tend to accumulate wealth in ways that are not only not 'productive' to society but ultikately destruvtive to society, however benefical to the lucky few.
Such a blind spot corrupts a lot of the discussion if not pointed out.
So, it's somewhat helful to talk instead of our goals - areyou for increasing opportunity broadly, or are you for policies resulting in increased concentration of wealth, for example?
Concentration of wealth is a terrible thing, I'll agree with you there. Where is the most wealth in America concentrated? In the government, that's where. As a result what do we have? Entrenched interests in Washington dictating where our wealth is spent, which artifically cotnrols the market and limits oppurtunity for an individual to accumulate wealth. When an indiivdual accumulates wealth, the concentration is diffused, when the goverment takes more than neccessary back, it is again concentrated. What makes the government responsible enough to have the highest concentration of wealth? Do they provide services proprotional to everyone's contributions to the system? Or does the governemnt, perhaps, artificially prop up its own interests above that of the country? Every dirty dollar you spend, be it on a product or on taxes is a vote of confidence in that product or service. Why do you think politicians coem and go but the system remains largely unchaged? We are voting for the goverment with our taxes regardless of the outcome and look where it has gotten us today. A dollar is a vote and I would rather vote for individuals or groups of individuals that demonstrate that they can create wealth, and therefore oppurtunity, not for a government that takes the wealth by force and redistributes it according to its own whims. You may say our votes dictate their whims, but how true is that? The galvanized poltiical atmosphere lends itself to over-balances one way and then another, no one really profits but those in Washington and those with good Washington men.
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Originally posted by: Craig234
FYI, if it helps clear up the discussion, one of my views is that one of the huge blind spots for right-wing people is how they attribute all accumulation of wealth as assumed to be productive activity. Their blind spot is how concentrated wealth and power tend to accumulate wealth in ways that are not only not 'productive' to society but ultikately destruvtive to society, however benefical to the lucky few.
Such a blind spot corrupts a lot of the discussion if not pointed out.
So, it's somewhat helful to talk instead of our goals - areyou for increasing opportunity broadly, or are you for policies resulting in increased concentration of wealth, for example?
Concentration of wealth is a terrible thing, I'll agree with you there.
Where is the most wealth in America concentrated? In the government, that's where. As a result what do we have? Entrenched interests in Washington dictating where our wealth is spent, which artifically cotnrols the market and limits oppurtunity for an individual to accumulate wealth. When an indiivdual accumulates wealth, the concentration is diffused, when the goverment takes more than neccessary back, it is again concentrated. What makes the government responsible enough to have the highest concentration of wealth? Do they provide services proprotional to everyone's contributions to the system? Or does the governemnt, perhaps, artificially prop up its own interests above that of the country? Every dirty dollar you spend, be it on a product or on taxes is a vote of confidence in that product or service. Why do you think politicians coem and go but the system remains largely unchaged? We are voting for the goverment with our taxes regardless of the outcome and look where it has gotten us today. A dollar is a vote and I would rather vote for individuals or groups of individuals that demonstrate that they can create wealth, and therefore oppurtunity, not for a government that takes the wealth by force and redistributes it according to its own whims. You may say our votes dictate their whims, but how true is that? The galvanized poltiical atmosphere lends itself to over-balances one way and then another, no one really profits but those in Washington and those with good Washington men.
Originally posted by: Genx87
This is something a vast majority of the big govt nanny staters dont seem to understand. They grant the federal govt more and more of our national income. Then wonder why the gap between rich and poor continues to grow at ever increasing rates. They believe if they just elect the right people to oppress one group by taxing and giving to another it will fix the issue. The problem is this doesnt happen. It disappears into the toilet of govt, usually flowing up.
What costs more, welfare for people on the street or giving multi-billion dollar no bid contracts to an elected officials district? Which one happens more in our govt? Yet the solution is to grant more power and wealth to the govt? Brilliant!
Originally posted by: bamacre
The ironic thing is, it is the Craig234 ideas that California shares that have put them in this situation. Massive spending and massive debt.
If anyone thinks this is funny, you shouldn't. This is what lies in the future for all of the rest of the USA as soon as the impending SS and Medicare nightmares come to haunt.
Of course, the "fix" for these problems will not be cuts in spending, it will be increases in revenues. How much should we pay. The answer is always more, more more.
Originally posted by: Craig234
We need to recognize that we're not differing on the details but on the big issue of wealth and society.
You are so wrapped up in government government government that I think you are not understanding the issue of wealth and society. I'll explain.
'Big government' - whether our own or others from the fascist to the communist to the feudal to the simply corrupt - is but one form of 'concerntration of wealth'.
What you are not noticing, as I see it, is how the issue exists just as much when 'government' isn't the issue; the same issue exists whether government is removed from the equation (the robber baron/lassiez faire system, for example) or the wealthy are merged with government (the old monarchy system, or fascism, for example).
In fact, our democratic form of government *can be* the most effective yet found (short of revolution, which begs the question what it leads to, and the huge cost, and the fact that it's pretty much impossible in our society) for balancing the concentration of wealth. But only when the democracy is healthy and representing the public (think the FDR era or the JFK era), not when it's serving the most wealthy as now (since Reagan), *against* the public interest.
The disagreement we have is that while I say the issue is who the government is representing because our democracy has problems, you are saying the issue is simply the government - but any solution I see 'your side' offer makes the problem worse by reducing the government's ability to represent the public interest, and transferring the power to the very unaccountable most wealthy people that have dominated societies throughout history in whatever form of government.
I think that the FDR/JFK type policies that strengthened our middle class are far better than the anti-government policies the right has to offer.
We agree, I presume, Bush is bad government, but you see him, it seems, as 'government' while I see him as 'a bad president' needing replacement.
IMO, the anti-government policies are a real threat to our very core as a nation of the welfare of the public. Ultimately, the wealthy are at odds with democracy.
The question for them is, is power better in their hands or distributed to the public? If you don't know their answer, it'll be hard for us to communicate.
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Yes, and in a captialist society where your dollar is more powerful than a vote on election day, what then? Is Washington controlled by votes or by dollars? It is for the good of scoiety to think of more than just election days, but of where their money goes each day and to make decisions based on that. You can change the world a hell of a lot faster by intelligently deciding where your dollar goes and not just who you vote fo. Elections are driven by media and those fortunate enough to have extra money at election time to donate. Where do those that have the extra money get the extra money? Well, from Joe Six-Pack that buys his product all year round or products he has investments in. If joe Six-Pack starts discriminating against what products he buys those that have the extra money come election time will have earned it by Joe Six-Packs dollar votes. I am not for the empowerment for the wealthy, I am for the empowerment for the intelligent, and the intelligent should realize voting happens every day, every time you open the wallet you are making a vote. Great capitalits understand this, great consumers understand this and if this little bit of information could get out, America could change for the better.
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think it's a great topic to ask how we can do more to get people informed and voting better - against, for example, the concentration of wealth we both oppose.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
The ironic thing is, it is the Craig234 ideas that California shares that have put them in this situation. Massive spending and massive debt.
If anyone thinks this is funny, you shouldn't. This is what lies in the future for all of the rest of the USA as soon as the impending SS and Medicare nightmares come to haunt.
Of course, the "fix" for these problems will not be cuts in spending, it will be increases in revenues. How much should we pay. The answer is always more, more more.
Wrong, Bamacre.
My governors are the Browns (Pat and Jerry); I've defended Gray Davis, who practiced *fiscal responsibility*. His policy to restore the DMV license fee would have raised exactly the amount as our deficit was later - but Republicans were able to run against him on a policy of 'lower taxes' which led to the deficit (given their spending levels).
Gov. Gray Davis was at war with the corruption of Enron and refusing to let them off the hook at the expense of the CA taxpayers - while Schwarzeneggar, buddy of Ken Lay, did.
Get the facts right if you are going to say something about my views.
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think it's a great topic to ask how we can do more to get people informed and voting better - against, for example, the concentration of wealth we both oppose.
How about explaining patieently that the reason they can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart is because they continue to shop at Wal-Mart. Explain to them how every dollar you spend on a product made in China does not magicall get transferred to an American's pocket. I do not want to come off as isolationist, I am not, the global market is a glorious thing, but a little refresher course on why Johnny got laid of from his boot factory might make some people make better decisions.
I think the more nefarious threat is the large export of wealth from America, it doesn't affect investment bankers and the extremely wealthy, it dispropritonately affects the middle and lower classes. If more wealth could be created in America, more Americans would have jobs, if more Americans had jobs, more Americans would have health care, if more Americans have health care, the taxes for medicare and other such programs can be reduced or funneled into paying down the debt.
The wealth in the world has to be concentrated somewhere, so I say why not in America?
Why not understand that the only people that can actually make that happen are Americans and American capitalists? Instead of decrying the wealthy for being wealthy, why not decry them for taking or dollar and sending 20 cents to China and pocketing the rest?
The only way you will make a coporation such as that change is by avoiding their services and products at all costs.
You can complain and complain, but as long as your dollar is not going to America, you are giving a tacit approval to those corporatists to continue doing what they are doing. So we get cheap products made in China, but we can only afford to by cheap produts made in China, it sarts eroding our choice. Every dollar that leaves America cannot be used to improve it, and higher taxaction will do nothign to stem the flow of that wealth loss.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Wrong, Bamacre.
My governors are the Browns (Pat and Jerry); I've defended Gray Davis, who practiced *fiscal responsibility*. His policy to restore the DMV license fee would have raised exactly the amount as our deficit was later - but Republicans were able to run against him on a policy of 'lower taxes' which led to the deficit (given their spending levels).
Gov. Gray Davis was at war with the corruption of Enron and refusing to let them off the hook at the expense of the CA taxpayers - while Schwarzeneggar, buddy of Ken Lay, did.
Get the facts right if you are going to say something about my views.
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
Originally posted by: Brigandier
I think we have both realized how much we actually have in common,
I guess I'm just too cynical to think that the government will actually change its ways.
I am extremely hopeful(yes, that word) to see an administration under Obama as his is probably the most democratically finance campaign in recent history. I want to see him change the corporate structure of Washington, and if he doesn't I'll just cling to my real votes don't matter dollar votes do mentality. There are a lot of things a responsible government can do to help its country, I just don't see our government doing very many of those things.
I want to be proved wrong by the government, but if I'm not I won't let them interfere with my march towards personal happiness.
And if that means avoiding as many taxes as I can, I will, and it seems that California will never be a place for me to try and accumulate wealth.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Wrong, Bamacre.
My governors are the Browns (Pat and Jerry); I've defended Gray Davis, who practiced *fiscal responsibility*. His policy to restore the DMV license fee would have raised exactly the amount as our deficit was later - but Republicans were able to run against him on a policy of 'lower taxes' which led to the deficit (given their spending levels).
Gov. Gray Davis was at war with the corruption of Enron and refusing to let them off the hook at the expense of the CA taxpayers - while Schwarzeneggar, buddy of Ken Lay, did.
Get the facts right if you are going to say something about my views.
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
I don't know what you're trying to get at. It depends how you break the spending into categories.
Broadly speaking, the next largest spending is on a variety of 'human services' lumped together, transportation, housing, and prisons.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
I don't know what you're trying to get at. It depends how you break the spending into categories.
Broadly speaking, the next largest spending is on a variety of 'human services' lumped together, transportation, housing, and prisons.
Then please allow the state of CA to break it down for you...
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/...mmary/Introduction.pdf
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Right. And other than education, what are the two biggest areas of expenditures for the state of CA?
I don't know what you're trying to get at. It depends how you break the spending into categories.
Broadly speaking, the next largest spending is on a variety of 'human services' lumped together, transportation, housing, and prisons.
Then please allow the state of CA to break it down for you...
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/...mmary/Introduction.pdf
Why? I checked their data before answering, and it's one way to break it into groups.
I still have no idea what you are getting at.
Originally posted by: Craig234
A lot of wealthy Californians feel differenly.