Do you prefer an America with more or less concentration of wealth?

[dank69]

I'm sure you believe you've won something. Sad.

I'm sure you believe you are fooling someone, somewhere.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If we could harness half of the energy that GOP supporters put into crafting logical fallacies to try to tear down Democrats and their policies and/or defend the GOP's failed policies the US would be energy independent by now.

Careful, I probably seem to be a GOP supporter to many, but then when Bush was up I was a Dem 😀

To my worldview the Democrats and Reps have one thing in common and that's a faith in their core philosophies which tends to overshadow and eliminate other possibilities. Take the example of income distribution. The hardcore Rep might maintain that those at the top get there through merit and hard work. True that those qualities assist in rising in the hierarchy of mediocrity, however those at the very top who make decisions which directly influence corporate policy and therefore the economy to a large degree are insulated. They do not need to do well, they have to have the right connections and determine each others compensation. By far the greatest control is held by an unaccountable few.

For it's part the Dems have an unhealthy faith in the beneficence of government and it's competence. A thread here was about increasing the taxation on the greatest income earners. At first glance that sounds nice, but upon looking at the amount of extra revenue produced it's little. What does it do to promote job growth or increases in wages? Nothing. What does it do? It gets even. I'd suggest a world where people are better off is preferable to one where people get revenge. Then there are topics like health care where neither side wants to know any of the particulars. One argues for a free market system that never existed, or puts faith in a single payer framework because it works somewhere else. The thought that that system coevolved with the nation, it's government, it's legal system, and it's society never seems to cross their minds. They point to the superiority of nations where gangs and inner city crime and ignorance are virtually absent, where the population density naturally makes services less expensive, and without any consideration of what is best for patients declare that they have the only answer and no one need look further. That's hubris on an immense scale. Note that education in Germany is less expensive and has better results. That means if we had a public school system run by government our education would be better. Oops, we have that already. What's the difference? The setting and the particulars.

IMO we need a drastic change in how legislation is considered and produced. If I had my way we would not have Congress go about making major decisions of policy based on political considerations first and a marginal (if that) understanding of the subject. Wherever there are changes of major import, such as health care, energy, R&D, economic reform etc, I'd require that experts in the various subjects recognized by peers as being superior in character and knowledge would consider the various aspects and ramifications of problems we face. They would be assisted by experts in law and regulations to produce legal language that as closely as possible translates into the desired action. Then the whole thing goes to Congress and the public and very publically too. Then the Dems and Reps can argue and fuss and explain why their incompetence is superior to rationality and answer to the public.

Yes that would work nicely, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would allow that because it would mean a loss of political control, and that more than the nation is what is important.

 

[dank69]

Careful, I probably seem to be a GOP supporter to many, but then when Bush was up I was a Dem 😀

To my worldview the Democrats and Reps have one thing in common and that's a faith in their core philosophies which tends to overshadow and eliminate other possibilities. Take the example of income distribution. The hardcore Rep might maintain that those at the top get there through merit and hard work. True that those qualities assist in rising in the hierarchy of mediocrity, however those at the very top who make decisions which directly influence corporate policy and therefore the economy to a large degree are insulated. They do not need to do well, they have to have the right connections and determine each others compensation. By far the greatest control is held by an unaccountable few.

For it's part the Dems have an unhealthy faith in the beneficence of government and it's competence. A thread here was about increasing the taxation on the greatest income earners. At first glance that sounds nice, but upon looking at the amount of extra revenue produced it's little. What does it do to promote job growth or increases in wages? Nothing. What does it do? It gets even. I'd suggest a world where people are better off is preferable to one where people get revenge. Then there are topics like health care where neither side wants to know any of the particulars. One argues for a free market system that never existed, or puts faith in a single payer framework because it works somewhere else. The thought that that system coevolved with the nation, it's government, it's legal system, and it's society never seems to cross their minds. They point to the superiority of nations where gangs and inner city crime and ignorance are virtually absent, where the population density naturally makes services less expensive, and without any consideration of what is best for patients declare that they have the only answer and no one need look further. That's hubris on an immense scale. Note that education in Germany is less expensive and has better results. That means if we had a public school system run by government our education would be better. Oops, we have that already. What's the difference? The setting and the particulars.

IMO we need a drastic change in how legislation is considered and produced. If I had my way we would not have Congress go about making major decisions of policy based on political considerations first and a marginal (if that) understanding of the subject. Wherever there are changes of major import, such as health care, energy, R&D, economic reform etc, I'd require that experts in the various subjects recognized by peers as being superior in character and knowledge would consider the various aspects and ramifications of problems we face. They would be assisted by experts in law and regulations to produce legal language that as closely as possible translates into the desired action. Then the whole thing goes to Congress and the public and very publically too. Then the Dems and Reps can argue and fuss and explain why their incompetence is superior to rationality and answer to the public.

Yes that would work nicely, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would allow that because it would mean a loss of political control, and that more than the nation is what is important.

No, I know you and what to profess to believe. That comment wasn't aimed at you, although it seems like quite a few 'independents' tend to latch on to the fallacies just as quickly. Take the bolded statement, above. Pure straw man argument. I'm sure there are some less educated Dems out there that don't understand why the rich should be taxed more and maybe even think it's something as primitive as 'getting even.' The more educated look at the history of taxation in this country and realize that the rich got unfair tax cuts recently that the rest of us did not get in the name of job creation that never came to fruition. What you label getting even, I label as restoring order to a broken system.

 

[theeedude]

Let it concentrate some more, roaring 20s style. Follow it with New Deal 2.0.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It is never good to get a concentration.

It also does not work out well with a forced equality.

You have to let people be able to excel, but not let them write the RULES for everybody once they do. That is what we have now. Those that "make it" support the candidates that get elected that make the rules that benefit those that FISCALLY supported them.

The trick is, how do you dismantle that mechanism w/o going completely totalitarian?

If Man is to be encouraged to get more, they will do so in whatever way they can. "Influencing" politicians to re-write the rules is one way to do that.

 

[nehalem256]

It is never good to get a concentration.

It also does not work out well with a forced equality.

You have to let people be able to excel, but not let them write the RULES for everybody once they do. That is what we have now. Those that "make it" support the candidates that get elected that make the rules that benefit those that FISCALLY supported them.

The trick is, how do you dismantle that mechanism w/o going completely totalitarian?

If Man is to be encouraged to get more, they will do so in whatever way they can. "Influencing" politicians to re-write the rules is one way to do that.

It seems that the most logical method is with a higher estate tax. This prevents cross-generational wealth concentration.

It also makes it hard to argue that you are taxing people for being successful. And if you want to whine about only inheriting 10 million dollars from your father by my guest... *smallest violin in the world plays for you*

You keep what you earn, but not what others earn.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, I know you and what to profess to believe. That comment wasn't aimed at you, although it seems like quite a few 'independents' tend to latch on to the fallacies just as quickly. Take the bolded statement, above. Pure straw man argument. I'm sure there are some less educated Dems out there that don't understand why the rich should be taxed more and maybe even think it's something as primitive as 'getting even.' The more educated look at the history of taxation in this country and realize that the rich got unfair tax cuts recently that the rest of us did not get in the name of job creation that never came to fruition. What you label getting even, I label as restoring order to a broken system.

I understand that you aren't looking at this from a perspective of revenge however consider what does removing income from the highest earners do? Does it get those jobs we need? Does it encourage economic improvement for others? Will that money go to your paycheck? The real point is what does it fix? The answer is nothing.

I'm not arguing against a restructuring of taxation, in fact I'd be amenable and even encourage it, however consider a few things.

What would be your goal for the mainstream worker? More job opportunities? Better pay? I believe that's what you want. Now look at the threads dedicated to the economy. You'll see much dissatisfaction and rightly so. The answer? Tax the rich. Ok we've taxed them. Jobs? Nope. Better wages? Nope. What has achieving historical balance done? Nothing but take money. That's getting even. Not because it increases taxes on the rich, but because it does so without benefiting everyone else. That's an ultimately fruitless way of thinking.

Let's take an example of someone I find irritating. I can't use names so I'll describe him in the manner he posts. I suspect he'll be easily identifiable.
This individual is the most verbose of the regulars, who tells people that he's effectively in charge of his topics with a most imperious attitude, brings on the evil of corporations, and extols the virtue of the Progressive movement. IMO he defines the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Need any more clues? 😀
With all his words and his condemnation what constructive suggestions has he come up with? Nothing I can think of. Well corporations are evil and the top makes too much. What do people think of to fix the situation? Tax the rich. Give the government some vague authority to fix things by picking his party. Not very helpful.

Ever see the Star Trek episode "The Squire of Gothos"? There was a memorable quote by Spock which sums up my attitude concerning someone like that.

"I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without constructive purpose."

That is something in which I believe, however trekkish it might seem. We need to think about the situation we find ourselves in and not use power to restore a balance which is not beneficial. Rather the attitude ought to be to seek out solutions and use the powers we have through the entity of government (note the way I say that- We use OUR powers, a subtle yet important point) to make those in top corporate positions more accountable to the majority of stockholders, and that includes direct input into who serves on a board, how much compensation is given and the conditions which must be met to receive it. A taxation policy which encourages long term investment in American workers and jobs. A taxation framework which rewards companies for positive policies in this regard coupled with greater accountability by boards to a greater number of shareholders would, I believe, go far further than the diversion of "taxem". We also need to hold those in government accountable, not make excuses for them when our party of choice does not follow through. "The Evil XParty" as an excuse for the ills of our country is just that, an excuse. Regardless of party affiliation it should not be hard to see that the majority of breadwinners could use some help. Instead of defending institutions of government or private enterprise it's time to kick some ass and get things under control, which in the end benefits everyone from the least to the most as dollars are reckoned.

Constructive purpose. That ought to be the guiding philosophy when dealing with such matters.

 

[dank69]

I understand that you aren't looking at this from a perspective of revenge however consider what does removing income from the highest earners do? Does it get those jobs we need? Does it encourage economic improvement for others? Will that money go to your paycheck? The real point is what does it fix? The answer is nothing.

I'm not arguing against a restructuring of taxation, in fact I'd be amenable and even encourage it, however consider a few things.

What would be your goal for the mainstream worker? More job opportunities? Better pay? I believe that's what you want. Now look at the threads dedicated to the economy. You'll see much dissatisfaction and rightly so. The answer? Tax the rich. Ok we've taxed them. Jobs? Nope. Better wages? Nope. What has achieving historical balance done? Nothing but take money. That's getting even. Not because it increases taxes on the rich, but because it does so without benefiting everyone else. That's an ultimately fruitless way of thinking.

You say taxing the rich fixes nothing. I never said it is the solution to all our problems. It is a small step back in the right direction. For starters, the extra revenue could go towards paying down our debt. After all, it is clear to most of us that this country faces a revenue problem. IMO, the revenue problem is bigger than the spending problem. Now that doesn't mean I don't think some spending should be reigned in, it just means I think the first issue that needs to be fixed is the revenue.

Now, what you are thinking of is a small increase in taxes on the wealthy. What I support is a much larger increase on amounts over $1M/yr income and all profits. That would make a more significant dent in our revenue problem and at the same time encourage growth.

GOP mantra has been claiming for a long time now that lower taxes = growth, but observant people can see after decades of evidence that that claim is 100% false. Nobody says 'Hey, I have all this extra money now, I'll use it to create more jobs not because I need more people but because I don't like having this extra money.' I'm in the camp that can't believe Americans fell for this shtick while at the same time not surprised. 🙁

Oh sure, they frame it as the little guy who needs to hire more people but can't afford to because of taxes and regs. If hiring another person isn't going to boost your bottom line enough to cover additional taxes, you don't need to hire another person. Your business plan is a failure.

No, employers will create jobs if it will make them more money. However, as I have asked on these forums before, if you were faced with a decision between paying 75% of your second million this year to the government or reinvesting it in ways that avoid having to pay tax on a significant portion of it, what would you choose? This is why I think increasing taxes on large amounts encourages growth.

Let's take an example of someone I find irritating. I can't use names so I'll describe him in the manner he posts. I suspect he'll be easily identifiable.
This individual is the most verbose of the regulars, who tells people that he's effectively in charge of his topics with a most imperious attitude, brings on the evil of corporations, and extols the virtue of the Progressive movement. IMO he defines the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Need any more clues? 😀
With all his words and his condemnation what constructive suggestions has he come up with? Nothing I can think of. Well corporations are evil and the top makes too much. What do people think of to fix the situation? Tax the rich. Give the government some vague authority to fix things by picking his party. Not very helpful.

Ever see the Star Trek episode "The Squire of Gothos"? There was a memorable quote by Spock which sums up my attitude concerning someone like that.

"I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without constructive purpose."

That is something in which I believe, however trekkish it might seem. We need to think about the situation we find ourselves in and not use power to restore a balance which is not beneficial. Rather the attitude ought to be to seek out solutions and use the powers we have through the entity of government (note the way I say that- We use OUR powers, a subtle yet important point) to make those in top corporate positions more accountable to the majority of stockholders, and that includes direct input into who serves on a board, how much compensation is given and the conditions which must be met to receive it. A taxation policy which encourages long term investment in American workers and jobs. A taxation framework which rewards companies for positive policies in this regard coupled with greater accountability by boards to a greater number of shareholders would, I believe, go far further than the diversion of "taxem". We also need to hold those in government accountable, not make excuses for them when our party of choice does not follow through. "The Evil XParty" as an excuse for the ills of our country is just that, an excuse. Regardless of party affiliation it should not be hard to see that the majority of breadwinners could use some help. Instead of defending institutions of government or private enterprise it's time to kick some ass and get things under control, which in the end benefits everyone from the least to the most as dollars are reckoned.

Constructive purpose. That ought to be the guiding philosophy when dealing with such matters.

If you want me to believe that the GOP is not the source of all the ills this country faces you will have an uphill battle. Not because I am biased, but because I have poured over countless amounts of evidence that points to that conclusion. You will have to present me with concrete evidence that the evils I have seen from the GOP were either not really so evil or not really their doing. At the same time, if you want me to believe the Dems are equally responsible, you will have to provide me with mountains of evidence of their wrong doing equal to the amount that I can find from the GOP.

Righties and independents claim all this evidence exists but most of what I see posted here is pure logical fallacy. I'm not saying Dems are saints. I have seen a few things here and there that I don't like. But I am talking about very minor things and it is very rare.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you want me to believe that the GOP is not the source of all the ills this country faces you will have an uphill battle. Not because I am biased, but because I have poured over countless amounts of evidence that points to that conclusion. You will have to present me with concrete evidence that the evils I have seen from the GOP were either not really so evil or not really their doing. At the same time, if you want me to believe the Dems are equally responsible, you will have to provide me with mountains of evidence of their wrong doing equal to the amount that I can find from the GOP.

Righties and independents claim all this evidence exists but most of what I see posted here is pure logical fallacy. I'm not saying Dems are saints. I have seen a few things here and there that I don't like. But I am talking about very minor things and it is very rare.

Who is providing funding for Obama? Follow the money. What have the Democrats proposed along the lines I suggest? Nothing that they've pushed for. Who do they blame for that? Republicans.

The evidence of malfeasance is not only by what's been done but what has not. I don't care if you want to blame the GOP for everything but cancer, but at least question your party and examine what they've done and pushed hard for.

 

[dank69]

Who is providing funding for Obama? Follow the money. What have the Democrats proposed along the lines I suggest? Nothing that they've pushed for. Who do they blame for that? Republicans.

The evidence of malfeasance is not only by what's been done but what has not. I don't care if you want to blame the GOP for everything but cancer, but at least question your party and examine what they've done and pushed hard for.

You are doing the same thing:

A taxation policy which encourages long term investment in American workers and jobs. A taxation framework which rewards companies for positive policies ...

You need to be specific. What changes to taxation? It's easy to say 'make spending cuts' but not so easy to list specific cuts to be made.

The assertion that what Dems have not done is equal to what GOP has done isn't going to fly. Should the Dems do more? Of course. Do I think it is as simple as follow the money? Not a chance. Look at SOPA/PIPA. Gobs of money were thrown at congressmen to get them passed. Public outcry outweighed the money thrown at them, D and R alike. In fact, I gave credit to the GOP for being the first to pull out of SOPA.

As for what the Dems haven't done, just look what happened when they tried to get the tax cuts for top bracket to expire. GOP blocked. What about single payer? Think GOP will let that fly? What about wrenching record amounts of liquidity from corporation bank accounts? Think the GOP is going to let them do that? How about passing more regs on financial industry? Medical industry? Energy industry? Insurance industry? Telcom? Look at how hard the GOP is fighting ACA when it basically boils down to getting the insurance industry under control.

Sorry man, you need a much stronger case and I am just scratching the surface here.

 

[nehalem256]

As for what the Dems haven't done, just look what happened when they tried to get the tax cuts for top bracket to expire. GOP blocked. What about single payer? Think GOP will let that fly? What about wrenching record amounts of liquidity from corporation bank accounts? Think the GOP is going to let them do that? How about passing more regs on financial industry? Medical industry? Energy industry? Insurance industry? Telcom? Look at how hard the GOP is fighting ACA when it basically boils down to getting the insurance industry under control.

Maybe the problem is that Democrats like to blame health insurance companies for costs when they are not the problem

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...he-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story_1.html

The players sitting across the table from them — the health insurers — are not so profitable. In 2009, their profit margins were a mere 2.2 percent. That’s a signal that the sellers have the upper hand over the buyers.

But hey at least they got it so independent women have their health insurance is subsidized by men right? :\

 

[Ausm]

I believe nothing will change until we eliminate career Politicians so basically basically this subject isn't really worth arguing about it.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Basically?

 

[Lithium381]

How about wealth distribution that are relational to the taxes charged to those making that percentage?

 

[dmcowen674]

Do you prefer an America with more or less concentration of wealth?

It's obvious by Americans doing nothing to stop the 1% they love supporting being screwed.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The nature of the question is basically flawed and inherently dishonest IMHO. The real intent of this question is whether you prefer big government and big government policies that attempt to insure outcomes (A.K.A redistribution of wealth) or do you support allowing wealth to grow naturally in a given economy in accordance to free market and capitalist policies which promote competition with very little government interaction/interference (no subsides, low taxes, few if any tax breaks, few and minor regulations etc).

Insinuating that the current concentration of wealth is "unfair" is no different then saying that it is unfair that some students earn F's or D's while others earn C's, B's or A's in a classroom while systematically and intentionally ignoring the efforts made by all individual students in the course.

In addition the question do not even address why wealth concentration has accumulated in such a lopsided manner (hint: see big government, its policies, mandates, regulations, etc and who it favors in the market place) or how big government policies that are design to promote "Fairness" end up being inherently unfair (regulations or mandates which block off entrepreneurial expansion and growth) or worse promote rather then address the unbalance mentioned by the OP (See the effects of "The war on poverty"). Neither does it actually ask one to understand the impact of wealth concentration or the impact of government policies that would attempt to correct it of which these policies would have a cost inherent in themselves that cannot be ignored.

It's fun to watch you guys attempt to appear intellectual. Money is the same thing as grades! Lol, good one! Big government caused wealth concentration, not deregulation! Seriously, cut regs some more so we can stop the looting! You have me ROFLMAO over here. 😀

Well thanks for not responding with anything of intellectual value.

 

[Lithium381]

It's obvious by Americans doing nothing to stop the 1% they love supporting being screwed.

Honestly Dave, do you really blame the 1% or can you see past it and see that it's the government? Americans doing nothing to stop it? You mean by reelecting the same career politians year after year so they can get their palms greased again?

 

[Lithium381]

You say taxing the rich fixes nothing. I never said it is the solution to all our problems. It is a small step back in the right direction. For starters, the extra revenue could go towards paying down our debt. After all, it is clear to most of us that this country faces a revenue problem. IMO, the revenue problem is bigger than the spending problem. Now that doesn't mean I don't think some spending should be reigned in, it just means I think the first issue that needs to be fixed is the revenue.

LOL . . . . . NONE of the people in washington give a flying fsck about the debt. They use it as a talking point to charge the people one way or the other.

Now, what you are thinking of is a small increase in taxes on the wealthy. What I support is a much larger increase on amounts over $1M/yr income and all profits. That would make a more significant dent in our revenue problem and at the same time encourage growth.

GOP mantra has been claiming for a long time now that lower taxes = growth, but observant people can see after decades of evidence that that claim is 100% false. Nobody says 'Hey, I have all this extra money now, I'll use it to create more jobs not because I need more people but because I don't like having this extra money.' I'm in the camp that can't believe Americans fell for this shtick while at the same time not surprised. 🙁

Oh sure, they frame it as the little guy who needs to hire more people but can't afford to because of taxes and regs. If hiring another person isn't going to boost your bottom line enough to cover additional taxes, you don't need to hire another person. Your business plan is a failure.

No, employers will create jobs if it will make them more money. However, as I have asked on these forums before, if you were faced with a decision between paying 75% of your second million this year to the government or reinvesting it in ways that avoid having to pay tax on a significant portion of it, what would you choose? This is why I think increasing taxes on large amounts encourages growth.

That's like throwing away 75% of your second million. It will be wasted. I woudln't object to taxes so much if they were spent better. Why would someone voluntarily pay taxes? I don't think taxation is so much the issue in no job growth, it's the regulations that stifle it.

If you want me to believe that the GOP is not the source of all the ills this country faces you will have an uphill battle. Not because I am biased, but because I have poured over countless amounts of evidence that points to that conclusion. You will have to present me with concrete evidence that the evils I have seen from the GOP were either not really so evil or not really their doing. At the same time, if you want me to believe the Dems are equally responsible, you will have to provide me with mountains of evidence of their wrong doing equal to the amount that I can find from the GOP.

Righties and independents claim all this evidence exists but most of what I see posted here is pure logical fallacy. I'm not saying Dems are saints. I have seen a few things here and there that I don't like. But I am talking about very minor things and it is very rare.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Permutation.

What if the money you paid for taxes after a certain point became something you could direct?

Not absolute control, but more like a "government donation" to the military, social services, medical research, etc etc?


I am NOT saying that this is a feasible proposal... just trying to find a way to get the money that is needed, but not rob ALL of the power from it (and not screw the have-nots in the process...)

 

[Craig234]

I woudln't object to taxes so much if they were spent better. Why would someone voluntarily pay taxes? I don't think taxation is so much the issue in no job growth, it's the regulations that stifle it.

I think this is typical Republican confusion and delusion.

First, the agenda of the people with power on the right has nothing to do with 'spending taxes better' - it has to do with a selfish agenda simply to always shift wealth from the people to themselves, moving towards plutocracy. But that doesn't sell well for votes, so they pay to spread propaganda that makes the issue something that sells better, like the above line.

Why would someone voluntarily pay taxes? Because they understand that there is a debt owed for our society, morally and functionally; 'taxes are the price we pay for civilization', as one Supreme Court Justice put it. Those who prefer to shift wealth are happy to convince citizens it's being 'wasted' to get them to support cuts - which just happen to come from the 'good spending' while the 'bad' is increased.

It's not that there isn't often 'waste', but that the same people with power who use issues like this for getting votes, are the ones for the bad spending.

And the propaganda word about 'regulations', the bogeyman used constantly on the right - despite regulation being what improved the finance industry starting with FDR to give it its only several-decade period in US history without a major crash, while removing those regulations starting with Reagan brought the crashes right back, starting with the S&L scandal, and helped lead to the finance taking 40%+ of all profits in the economy instead of 10-15%. But blame the regulations, not the bad policies the right enacts.

The voters on the rights are widely ignorant of how government money is spent and the benefits of 'good' spending.

For example, the Ryan budget - being sold as 'a solution to our deficit' - shifts many billions by cutting Medicare spending by a third (to start) and moving it all to tax cuts for the rich.

I've yet to hear one right-wing voter point that out and criticize it - they fall for the lie.

Save234

 

[Craig234]

Honestly Dave, do you really blame the 1% or can you see past it and see that it's the government? Americans doing nothing to stop it? You mean by reelecting the same career politians year after year so they can get their palms greased again?

The problem isn't 'career politicians', some of whom areour best, and having them is essential to not having the government run by 'permanent bureaucracies'.

Rather it's having the WRONG career politicians, elected by having their election bought by powerful interests.

Bernie Sanders and John Boehner are both career politiians, but one is good for the country.

 

[ShawnD1]

The problem is that the market correcting itself can easily mean massive depression.

The market correcting itself can also mean virtual slavery. That's what caused Russia's 1917 communist revolution. There was such an extreme concentration of wealth that most people were essentially slaves. They didn't own land nor could they afford to buy land, so they would pay high rent to work the fields for someone wealthy. You get paid $100 to work the fields but your living conditions and food cost exactly $100 so you get nothing. That was the free market. Slavery in the US was part of the free market as well. The slave doesn't want to be a slave, but the 10 people pointing guns at him say he is a slave.

 

[dank69]

Well thanks for not responding with anything of intellectual value.

I'll tell you what, you present a post that requires an intellectual post in order to refute it, and I will provide some intellectual value. Keep presenting posts so full of logical holes that they can be refuted with simple mocking, however, and I'll stick with the easy way.

LOL . . . . . NONE of the people in washington give a flying fsck about the debt. They use it as a talking point to charge the people one way or the other.

How can you say that when we started to get our budget under control during the Clinton years?

That's like throwing away 75% of your second million. It will be wasted. I woudln't object to taxes so much if they were spent better. Why would someone voluntarily pay taxes? I don't think taxation is so much the issue in no job growth, it's the regulations that stifle it.

That is sort of my point. If you believe that sending $750k to the government is a waste, then you will choose option 2. You will reinvest it. That creates jobs. That keeps the money moving around instead of lining rich people's mattresses.

 

[tcG]

The market correcting itself can also mean virtual slavery. That's what caused Russia's 1917 communist revolution. There was such an extreme concentration of wealth that most people were essentially slaves. They didn't own land nor could they afford to buy land, so they would pay high rent to work the fields for someone wealthy. You get paid $100 to work the fields but your living conditions and food cost exactly $100 so you get nothing. That was the free market. Slavery in the US was part of the free market as well. The slave doesn't want to be a slave, but the 10 people pointing guns at him say he is a slave.

Free market doesn't mean anything goes. The non-aggression principle is still enforced, so things like slavery are still illegal just like murder, rape, and robbery.

 

[Craig234]

Free market doesn't mean anything goes. The non-aggression principle is still enforced, so things like slavery are still illegal just like murder, rape, and robbery.

You're only addressing extremes - actual slavery, murder - and ignoring the issue he raised, 'economic slavery', 'virtual slavery', very real and even inevitable results.