The fraud of "limited government"

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: alchemize
I love how "having government taking less of MY hard earned money and giving it to people who didn't earn it" is considered soaking the poor nowadays.

I don't get it either. Yet somehow they have the lower middle class convinced of it.

I'm afraid I'm not following you...?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shira
Title: The fraud of "limited government"

Perhaps you're stuck in semantics.

Let's try a government without the centralized planning. This is basically what I refer to as "limited government" where the feds don't have their business in everyone else's business. Let's try it with 50 individual states where almost all federal programs have to be voluntary instead of forced.

Washington DC has its role to play with national defense, settling feuds between states, trade and diplomacy with other nations, enforcing the Bill of Rights, etc, but let's not have them micromanage the entire nation from a single distant and unrepresentative location full of rich and corrupt sobs. Washington is corrupt and to distill the murky waters we have to drain the pond. We have to take away their power over everything instead of feeding them more of everything.

The first step of limited government and restoring power to the people is to abolish taxation on the people. Leave it to the states to tax their people and then collect federal money from the state. This single act would go a long ways toward enabling a check and balance against corruption.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I understand that, and one of the main reasons I've been hard on the R party as a whole. But it's intellectually lazy for him and others to try to claim "real" intent like that.

Unfortunately, the Republican party's constituents are too busy attacking the Left to actually fix their own party. That's not good. Because as long as the Republican party remains broken, they've lost my vote as well as many others. It's been a long time since I've voted for a Republican for president. A very long time.

 

[Infohawk]

What is the issue here? I don't think it's a secret that fiscal conservatives want the poor to pay for themselves.

As for the roads issue, infrastructure is a traditional role of government, even limited government. It's hard to have a competing network of private roads without paving the whole country to make room. And I doubt most fiscal convservatives would be against having those who use the roads pay for the roads. There are a lot of poor people on the roads. I imagine they benefit from road spending more than the rich.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Elias824
So because some people are stupid and cannot manage their own finances the rest of us should just get pooled together with them? I dont really care that the value of 401k have dropped by 1/3 over 18 months, were talking about much bigger lengths of time here. thing like 40 years. Obviously its probably not a good idea to retire during a major recession social security or not.
The other thing is if you usually remove the consequences from peoples actions and say its ok to be stupid, they will do just that.

It's not "some" people, it's the overwhelming majority of people. And SS was never meant to constitute one's entire old age income, it's supplementary. Yet, there are many, many people who are living on nothing but Social Security. Think about what kind of country we would have if we those folks had no income at all. What kind of life would I have if I were surrounded by a higher level of poverty than I see now? Who wants to live in a country like that?

Well the problem is we have had social security for so long now its rather impossible to get off of it. Obviously we cant just go around and drop peoples income off and say sorry to bad. If we mad the promise we have to keep it, but ideally we can try to avoid promising out far more then we can possible return. Then just not talk about how its going to bankrupt the country because the old people will just vote you out of office. I pretty much blame the aging population for about everything, the health care crisis, social security and medicate destroying the budget.
The problem is that the logic that "it helps people" is unlimited, there is no stopping point for when we should cut off the feeding tube and some things just get out of hand.

 

[cwjerome]

Seriously?

Limited government is a generic term and broad concept. It's one of the seven basic principles embedded in the Constitution... all it really means is government that is not all powerful, ie, it is limited to specific functions. The idea has been around from the beginning, a fact of American political history. What a bunch of 100% pure BS to claim the idea is fraudulent. The statement is nonsensical on its face.

Now anyone can make the argument that a fair portion of people on the Right are not really for limited government, even some of those who claim they are, and I would totally agree. But to strike down the very notion of limited government is complete and utter ideological "interference" where some people would attack a legitimate idea 'in stealth' by improperly establishing a faulty premise... basically trying to skew the discussion by framing the basic argument in a totally slanted (and irrational) way in order to steer the discourse down a preconceived path.

The linguistic arguments the Left is attempting these days is about as cynical and manipulative as it gets. They talk about the "marketing" of opinions, but they are every bit as engaged in selling their slick propaganda in the marketplace of ideas as anyone.

 

[Elias824]

pffft everyone now the constitution isnt the IN thing anymore, that's so 1790

 

[Moonbeam]

I find the debate between Athena and Elias to be profoundly fascinating, right down to their choice of Avatars. I wonder what the Briggs-Meyers types would be, which hemispheres light up and how when they think etc. Same world, completely different understanding. Really interesting.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: RedChief
Going back to the OP. Why should the state run liquor stores? Here in CA, liquor stores are private enterprises but very heavily regulated (liquor license is hard to get, unlike beer/wine) but the state makes money on taxes, fees, etc.

Or think of it this way. Liberals like the OP are for legalization of pot (assumption here for the OP). Yet once legalized, who would sell the pot? Not state run stores but private businesses. If a state said they would legalize pot but only sell it from state run stores, could you imagine the protests from the liberals with the big brother claims. Now the government is watching how much pot they smoke. Yet its perfectly acceptable for the state to run liquor stores.

Remember, the whole idea of state run stores is along the same lines as dry counties. Essentially do-gooders with conservative moral values wanting to impose there values on others. But for liberals in Virginia, this is ok because the Washington Post (who without, Craig Deeds would be 20% behind in the polls rather then 8-10) says its ok.

I was away all day.

I have no problem with, say, Virginia getting out of the liquor-selling business. But the real issue in that case was that funding would be shifted from social services to roads. Meaning that those social services would have to be paid for privately.

The right can crow, "We didn't have to raise taxes," but what the hell is the difference between, on the one hand, paying for a state-provided services via taxes and, on the other hand, having the public pay for privately-provided services with funds out of their own pockets?

To put this another way: You've got the same dollars being spent; the only difference is you've shifted the burden from a BROAD tax base - which includes the wealthiest members of society - to a much narrower private poor and middle-class base.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Take the money the elderly has put into SS over x number of years, and conservatively invest that same money using x number years returns and see which egg is bigger. think you missed his point by the way.

lol enron

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Elias824
Well yes someone did miss my point on social security, if you were intelligent with you money and put it in IRA's or mutual funds or whatver, you would live alot better then what social seurity could provide you.

That's one of those theories that falls apart when applied to real people. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to do that. Take a sample in any workplace and you'll see that most -- whether professors, medical receptionists, or truck drivers -- are not equipped for that type of long-term management. And professional managers turn out to be a big disappointment too; which is why the value of the average 401K has dropped by about a third over the past 18 months.

That and it would also give companies alot more money to invest and produce things with as well and really benefit our society as a whole.

The availability of capital for investment is a completely different issue. In fact, there is a inverse relationship between the rise of IRAs and the amount of self-financed growth. In the olden days (i.e. pre-80s), people saved more though old-fashioned instruments and growth was financed by US depositors, nowadays its foreign.

So because some people are stupid and cannot manage their own finances the rest of us should just get pooled together with them? I dont really care that the value of 401k have dropped by 1/3 over 18 months, were talking about much bigger lengths of time here. thing like 40 years. Obviously its probably not a good idea to retire during a major recession social security or not.
The other thing is if you usually remove the consequences from peoples actions and say its ok to be stupid, they will do just that.

in my adult lifespan, the dow is down 20% and the nasdaq is down 70%.

nice try there bro.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: RedChief
Going back to the OP. Why should the state run liquor stores? Here in CA, liquor stores are private enterprises but very heavily regulated (liquor license is hard to get, unlike beer/wine) but the state makes money on taxes, fees, etc.

Or think of it this way. Liberals like the OP are for legalization of pot (assumption here for the OP). Yet once legalized, who would sell the pot? Not state run stores but private businesses. If a state said they would legalize pot but only sell it from state run stores, could you imagine the protests from the liberals with the big brother claims. Now the government is watching how much pot they smoke. Yet its perfectly acceptable for the state to run liquor stores.

Remember, the whole idea of state run stores is along the same lines as dry counties. Essentially do-gooders with conservative moral values wanting to impose there values on others. But for liberals in Virginia, this is ok because the Washington Post (who without, Craig Deeds would be 20% behind in the polls rather then 8-10) says its ok.

liberal who is pro pot who wants the government to 'run' it because the private sector is inept chiming in.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shira
Title: The fraud of "limited government"

Perhaps you're stuck in semantics.

Let's try a government without the centralized planning. This is basically what I refer to as "limited government" where the feds don't have their business in everyone else's business. Let's try it with 50 individual states where almost all federal programs have to be voluntary instead of forced.

Washington DC has its role to play with national defense, settling feuds between states, trade and diplomacy with other nations, enforcing the Bill of Rights, etc, but let's not have them micromanage the entire nation from a single distant and unrepresentative location full of rich and corrupt sobs. Washington is corrupt and to distill the murky waters we have to drain the pond. We have to take away their power over everything instead of feeding them more of everything.

The first step of limited government and restoring power to the people is to abolish taxation on the people. Leave it to the states to tax their people and then collect federal money from the state. This single act would go a long ways toward enabling a check and balance against corruption.

this is cute because you think that the states are less corrupt. I need the federal government to keep my state in line, let alone do anything reasonable or competent, which it is fundamentally incapable of doing.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Seriously?

Limited government is a generic term and broad concept. It's one of the seven basic principles embedded in the Constitution... all it really means is government that is not all powerful, ie, it is limited to specific functions. The idea has been around from the beginning, a fact of American political history. What a bunch of 100% pure BS to claim the idea is fraudulent. The statement is nonsensical on its face.

Now anyone can make the argument that a fair portion of people on the Right are not really for limited government, even some of those who claim they are, and I would totally agree. But to strike down the very notion of limited government is complete and utter ideological "interference" where some people would attack a legitimate idea 'in stealth' by improperly establishing a faulty premise... basically trying to skew the discussion by framing the basic argument in a totally slanted (and irrational) way in order to steer the discourse down a preconceived path.

The linguistic arguments the Left is attempting these days is about as cynical and manipulative as it gets. They talk about the "marketing" of opinions, but they are every bit as engaged in selling their slick propaganda in the marketplace of ideas as anyone.

yet even the 'limited government' presidents abandoned it once they got into office, not to mention the ones that were never for it to begin with.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Elias824
Well yes someone did miss my point on social security, if you were intelligent with you money and put it in IRA's or mutual funds or whatver, you would live alot better then what social seurity could provide you.

That's one of those theories that falls apart when applied to real people. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to do that. Take a sample in any workplace and you'll see that most -- whether professors, medical receptionists, or truck drivers -- are not equipped for that type of long-term management. And professional managers turn out to be a big disappointment too; which is why the value of the average 401K has dropped by about a third over the past 18 months.

That and it would also give companies alot more money to invest and produce things with as well and really benefit our society as a whole.

The availability of capital for investment is a completely different issue. In fact, there is a inverse relationship between the rise of IRAs and the amount of self-financed growth. In the olden days (i.e. pre-80s), people saved more though old-fashioned instruments and growth was financed by US depositors, nowadays its foreign.

So because some people are stupid and cannot manage their own finances the rest of us should just get pooled together with them? I dont really care that the value of 401k have dropped by 1/3 over 18 months, were talking about much bigger lengths of time here. thing like 40 years. Obviously its probably not a good idea to retire during a major recession social security or not.
The other thing is if you usually remove the consequences from peoples actions and say its ok to be stupid, they will do just that.

'So' if you are now a 70y.o, still working because of the recessions affect on the value your 401k(aka superannuation fund) figuring you might live to 90y.o, how long should you be reasonably expected to work in your life? how long will it take for that person's 401k value to be recouped and to live a reasonably cosy life?
To call people of less virtue "stupid" just make it obvious to me your an arsehole!
What is the annual cost of owning a personally managed fund over a 401k publically managed group fund which isn't so high risk as the type of "investment" -aka gamble- which you are eluding to?
Maybe you are such a genius that you don't even need to think about retirement funds, because you will be filthy rich and really couldn't give a rat's arse about the quality of life others. Latter you would probably say "we" need more law enforcement capability.
It seems to be a ego-centric view point your coming from, in my rational.
But is that just me being envious or just communistic?

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: monovillage

Originally posted by: SirStev0
To be honest, I have noticed that every Repug plan boils down to a pretty simple formula:

1.) Oppose everything a Demo says.
2.) Gain Control Back.
3.) ????
4.) Profit!


I keep hearing a lot of opposition, but never solutions.

What's wrong with making money? Do you have a job? Do you have any investments? Do you make a ....Gasp! profit! ewww ewww ewww

Maybe he doesn't (like the majority of people) and is well justified in his opinion, the real issue is most cannot get enough capital to escape the tyranny the current system is causing, maybe he should live off baked beans and kool'aid to be able to "invest"(giving greater power to the corporate sector) in his s'hakey' future.
Middle class is shrinking that's a fact.

 

[squirrel dog]

"I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."



Thomas Jefferson

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

The upshot of this strategy is that when one adds up what people would pay in "limited government" taxes PLUS what most of the poor and middle-class would of necessity HAVE to pay for out of their own pockets to fund all of the essential services no longer funded by "limited government," the poor and middle-class would be much worse off. In other words, "limited government" ends up being very much akin to the Bush tax cuts - a further shifting of financial burdens from the rich to the poor and middle class.

A case in point is a proposal made by hard-right conservative Robert F. McDonnell, who is running for governor of Virginia, and who touts the "limited government" shibboleth all the time. One of McDonnell's "solutions" addresses Virginia's vexing transportation problems. He advocates that hard-liquor sales be privatized (currently, all hard-liquor sales in Virginia are made at state-run stores). Ignoring his extremely shaky financial projections and calculations (there is a good Washington Post op-ed piece that shreds his claims), the upshot of his plan is that money from liquor sales would be shifted AWAY from currently-funded, essential social services that benefit the poor and middle class TO road projects. And who would have to pay for those social services no longer funded by the state? I give you one guess.

I have yet to see any SPECIFIC "limited government" proposal that does NOT do this. In effect, "limited government" is a cynical euphemism for heaping more and more costs on the poor and middle class, and relieving the rich of those burdens.

A challenge: If you are a conservative who advocates "limited government," please provide a SPECIFIC example of a change YOU advocate that reduces government spending but does NOT at the same time shift at least the same-size burden onto the backs of the poor and middle class. And, no, the utterly vague phrase "eliminate waste and fraud" does not qualify.

Know you audience.
Someone asked in an ATPN thread why should his tax money go to taking care of sick people. He wrote that he was young and healthy and the country should not be subsidizing old sick people. This pretty much fits the mindset of a number of people on this forum.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Know you audience.

Unfortunately, ~50% of the audience here is either willfully blind to the realities before them, or a dummy who actually believes Fox News propaganda.

 

[monovillage]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: monovillage

Originally posted by: SirStev0
To be honest, I have noticed that every Repug plan boils down to a pretty simple formula:

1.) Oppose everything a Demo says.
2.) Gain Control Back.
3.) ????
4.) Profit!


I keep hearing a lot of opposition, but never solutions.

What's wrong with making money? Do you have a job? Do you have any investments? Do you make a ....Gasp! profit! ewww ewww ewww

Maybe he doesn't (like the majority of people) and is well justified in his opinion, the real issue is most cannot get enough capital to escape the tyranny the current system is causing, maybe he should live off baked beans and kool'aid to be able to "invest"(giving greater power to the corporate sector) in his s'hakey' future.
Middle class is shrinking that's a fact.

The majority of people in the US do have jobs. If you want to see tyranny of current systems look at various European countries that tax their citizens at a rate that prevents them from ever climbing out of State mandated poverty. Ohhh but they do get State provided health care, State provided child care, State provided................yeah.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Elias824
Well yes someone did miss my point on social security, if you were intelligent with you money and put it in IRA's or mutual funds or whatver, you would live alot better then what social seurity could provide you.

That's one of those theories that falls apart when applied to real people. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to do that. Take a sample in any workplace and you'll see that most -- whether professors, medical receptionists, or truck drivers -- are not equipped for that type of long-term management. And professional managers turn out to be a big disappointment too; which is why the value of the average 401K has dropped by about a third over the past 18 months.

That and it would also give companies alot more money to invest and produce things with as well and really benefit our society as a whole.

The availability of capital for investment is a completely different issue. In fact, there is a inverse relationship between the rise of IRAs and the amount of self-financed growth. In the olden days (i.e. pre-80s), people saved more though old-fashioned instruments and growth was financed by US depositors, nowadays its foreign.

So because some people are stupid and cannot manage their own finances the rest of us should just get pooled together with them? I dont really care that the value of 401k have dropped by 1/3 over 18 months, were talking about much bigger lengths of time here. thing like 40 years. Obviously its probably not a good idea to retire during a major recession social security or not.
The other thing is if you usually remove the consequences from peoples actions and say its ok to be stupid, they will do just that.

'So' if you are now a 70y.o, still working because of the recessions affect on the value your 401k(aka superannuation fund) figuring you might live to 90y.o, how long should you be reasonably expected to work in your life? how long will it take for that person's 401k value to be recouped and to live a reasonably cosy life?
To call people of less virtue "stupid" just make it obvious to me your an arsehole!
What is the annual cost of owning a personally managed fund over a 401k publically managed group fund which isn't so high risk as the type of "investment" -aka gamble- which you are eluding to?
Maybe you are such a genius that you don't even need to think about retirement funds, because you will be filthy rich and really couldn't give a rat's arse about the quality of life others. Latter you would probably say "we" need more law enforcement capability.
It seems to be a ego-centric view point your coming from, in my rational.
But is that just me being envious or just communistic?

Well I dont really want to argue symantics about when you should retire how much you should have and what the best way to do it is. Everyone keeps arguing about how the market being down stops people from retiring, but really it does all the time, its nothing new. Im also taking about a 40ish year retirement plan, 40 years ago in 1969 the dow was under a thousand.
Yes I am an asshole and my political ideologies are largely driven by my own perceptions of the reality that I live in. Ill give you some examples, now for starts I am 21 im going to school and I work part time, I am so fortunate to live an rather comfy life thanks to my parents. I also have saved quite a substantial amount of the money I have made, and I do dable abit in stocks though I do understand its pretty easy to loose quite a bit overnight even when your making the right choices. I live in Utah the reddest state in the union, and I really have to say we are actually pretty nice to our poor here. I think id rather be poor here then anywhere else. Are unemployment rate is also only at 6% so its really not to bad of a place to live.
Now pretty much everyone else I know is up to their eyebrows in debt, and only a few of those guys actually have jobs. One of them went out an bought a brand new car his dad had to make the downpayment on and he can barely afford to make the payments on. Another one of my friends joined the marine core at 21 after never having a job in his life, and dropped out after two weeks of boot camp and got shipped home. This guy was pretty much poor all his life but he did nothing about it. The only one of my friends that I have any financial respect for also joined the marines and as been in almost 6 months. He got sick of working odd jobs trying to pay for school and never having enough money. Now I am only 21 so well see what happens maybe ill retire poor, and you guys can all laugh at me.
There just isnt any drive by people to do things for themselves if you simply say that you will provide it for them. There will be people who undoubtatly suffer but no one ever talks about the rest that would probably have a good chance at actually living better. Now im not going to advocate getting rid of social security, but at least having some option or a little freedom with that money would be better then someone else telling you they know how to save for your retirement better then you do. I am more advocating stopping the promising of more money to everyone when we really just cant afford to do things like that anymore, this country has enough debt as it is. Well anyways there is my wall of text, and im glad someone enjoyed my debate with Athena now you guys can all say im a cynical bastard but its pretty much true, I have no illusions about it.

 

[Ihey8neocons]

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

The upshot of this strategy is that when one adds up what people would pay in "limited government" taxes PLUS what most of the poor and middle-class would of necessity HAVE to pay for out of their own pockets to fund all of the essential services no longer funded by "limited government," the poor and middle-class would be much worse off. In other words, "limited government" ends up being very much akin to the Bush tax cuts - a further shifting of financial burdens from the rich to the poor and middle class.

A case in point is a proposal made by hard-right conservative Robert F. McDonnell, who is running for governor of Virginia, and who touts the "limited government" shibboleth all the time. One of McDonnell's "solutions" addresses Virginia's vexing transportation problems. He advocates that hard-liquor sales be privatized (currently, all hard-liquor sales in Virginia are made at state-run stores). Ignoring his extremely shaky financial projections and calculations (there is a good Washington Post op-ed piece that shreds his claims), the upshot of his plan is that money from liquor sales would be shifted AWAY from currently-funded, essential social services that benefit the poor and middle class TO road projects. And who would have to pay for those social services no longer funded by the state? I give you one guess.

I have yet to see any SPECIFIC "limited government" proposal that does NOT do this. In effect, "limited government" is a cynical euphemism for heaping more and more costs on the poor and middle class, and relieving the rich of those burdens.

A challenge: If you are a conservative who advocates "limited government," please provide a SPECIFIC example of a change YOU advocate that reduces government spending but does NOT at the same time shift at least the same-size burden onto the backs of the poor and middle class. And, no, the utterly vague phrase "eliminate waste and fraud" does not qualify.

Too many words fgr me to process.

I can only say that Karl Marx had it right, wealthy people are evil. We need to confiscate their money and give it to the poor people that really need and deserve it. They made their money exploiting the poor, why the heck should be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Seriously?

Limited government is a generic term and broad concept. It's one of the seven basic principles embedded in the Constitution... all it really means is government that is not all powerful, ie, it is limited to specific functions. The idea has been around from the beginning, a fact of American political history. What a bunch of 100% pure BS to claim the idea is fraudulent. The statement is nonsensical on its face.

Now anyone can make the argument that a fair portion of people on the Right are not really for limited government, even some of those who claim they are, and I would totally agree. But to strike down the very notion of limited government is complete and utter ideological "interference" where some people would attack a legitimate idea 'in stealth' by improperly establishing a faulty premise... basically trying to skew the discussion by framing the basic argument in a totally slanted (and irrational) way in order to steer the discourse down a preconceived path.

The linguistic arguments the Left is attempting these days is about as cynical and manipulative as it gets. They talk about the "marketing" of opinions, but they are every bit as engaged in selling their slick propaganda in the marketplace of ideas as anyone.

yet even the 'limited government' presidents abandoned it once they got into office, not to mention the ones that were never for it to begin with.

Uh, no, unless you can name a few presidents who thought government should be all powerful and not have constitutional constraints, with evidence. But you can't.

There are a lot of things you can argue, such as how the commonly accepted notion of what a limited government looks like has changed over 200+ years, and so on. But what you people are doing is a dishonest muddling of concepts and contexts to pull rabbits out of your ass. The trick's on you. The fundamental principle of limited government as emboddied by the design and meaning of the US Constitution remains true to this day.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Zstream

So you are saying that poor and middle class citizens deserve free goods and services without any responsibility?

Who said the RICH are favored at all, in fact since you are so upset about the poor get nothing for free, then why not change tax % to a flat rate? Why not place the healthcare system on everyone with a flat rate?

You will now get upset at the above paragraph, start choose bits and pieces of the post. You will then say I am a neo-con, then say I am a right wing loon. If you want a Utopian society, where everyone is equal... well I LOL at you.

Historically, our system has been progressive (those who make more pay at a higher tax rate than those who make less). The Bush tax cuts - especially when combined with the effects of the (un-amended by Bush) Alternative Minimum Tax - made our system a lot less progressive. Over the last few decades, the disparity between the rich and middle class has grown enormously and (if my memory serves) the "real" earnings of the middle class have remained stagnant for at least the past 20 years. Add these trends up and extrapolate several more decades and we could end up with a system like those in many Central and South American countries, where large majorities of the population lives in poverty, the middle class is very small, and a tiny percentage have 99% of the total wealth.

No one has to SAY the rich are favored. Simply look at realty to see how advantaged the rich are and how well they're doing.

"Limited government" advocates would just accelerate this trend. So would the flat tax you mentioned.

My question to you is: Why would you want to advocate a system where a tiny percentage of the population does well and the rest do badly? Why would you want to live in a place where, in all likelihood, most of your relatives and friends and acquaintances would have to struggle for a decent life?

What are you talking about? The % of people who effectively pay no fed income tax increased under Bush.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Elias824
Well yes someone did miss my point on social security, if you were intelligent with you money and put it in IRA's or mutual funds or whatver, you would live alot better then what social seurity could provide you.

That's one of those theories that falls apart when applied to real people. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to do that. Take a sample in any workplace and you'll see that most -- whether professors, medical receptionists, or truck drivers -- are not equipped for that type of long-term management. And professional managers turn out to be a big disappointment too; which is why the value of the average 401K has dropped by about a third over the past 18 months.

That and it would also give companies alot more money to invest and produce things with as well and really benefit our society as a whole.

The availability of capital for investment is a completely different issue. In fact, there is a inverse relationship between the rise of IRAs and the amount of self-financed growth. In the olden days (i.e. pre-80s), people saved more though old-fashioned instruments and growth was financed by US depositors, nowadays its foreign.

So because some people are stupid and cannot manage their own finances the rest of us should just get pooled together with them? I dont really care that the value of 401k have dropped by 1/3 over 18 months, were talking about much bigger lengths of time here. thing like 40 years. Obviously its probably not a good idea to retire during a major recession social security or not.
The other thing is if you usually remove the consequences from peoples actions and say its ok to be stupid, they will do just that.

'So' if you are now a 70y.o, still working because of the recessions affect on the value your 401k(aka superannuation fund) figuring you might live to 90y.o, how long should you be reasonably expected to work in your life? how long will it take for that person's 401k value to be recouped and to live a reasonably cosy life?
To call people of less virtue "stupid" just make it obvious to me your an arsehole!
What is the annual cost of owning a personally managed fund over a 401k publically managed group fund which isn't so high risk as the type of "investment" -aka gamble- which you are eluding to?
Maybe you are such a genius that you don't even need to think about retirement funds, because you will be filthy rich and really couldn't give a rat's arse about the quality of life others. Latter you would probably say "we" need more law enforcement capability.
It seems to be a ego-centric view point your coming from, in my rational.
But is that just me being envious or just communistic?

Well I dont really want to argue symantics about when you should retire how much you should have and what the best way to do it is. Everyone keeps arguing about how the market being down stops people from retiring, but really it does all the time, its nothing new. Im also taking about a 40ish year retirement plan, 40 years ago in 1969 the dow was under a thousand.
Yes I am an asshole and my political ideologies are largely driven by my own perceptions of the reality that I live in. Ill give you some examples, now for starts I am 21 im going to school and I work part time, I am so fortunate to live an rather comfy life thanks to my parents. I also have saved quite a substantial amount of the money I have made, and I do dable abit in stocks though I do understand its pretty easy to loose quite a bit overnight even when your making the right choices. I live in Utah the reddest state in the union, and I really have to say we are actually pretty nice to our poor here. I think id rather be poor here then anywhere else. Are unemployment rate is also only at 6% so its really not to bad of a place to live.
Now pretty much everyone else I know is up to their eyebrows in debt, and only a few of those guys actually have jobs. One of them went out an bought a brand new car his dad had to make the down payment on and he can barely afford to make the payments on. Another one of my friends joined the marine core at 21 after never having a job in his life, and dropped out after two weeks of boot camp and got shipped home. This guy was pretty much poor all his life but he did nothing about it. The only one of my friends that I have any financial respect for also joined the marines and as been in almost 6 months. He got sick of working odd jobs trying to pay for school and never having enough money. Now I am only 21 so well see what happens maybe ill retire poor, and you guys can all laugh at me.
There just isnt any drive by people to do things for themselves if you simply say that you will provide it for them. There will be people who undoubtedly suffer but no one ever talks about the rest that would probably have a good chance at actually living better. Now im not going to advocate getting rid of social security, but at least having some option or a little freedom with that money would be better then someone else telling you they know how to save for your retirement better then you do. I am more advocating stopping the promising of more money to everyone when we really just cant afford to do things like that anymore, this country has enough debt as it is. Well anyways there is my wall of text, and I'm glad someone enjoyed my debate with Athena now you guys can all say im a cynical bastard but its pretty much true, I have no illusions about it.

I wouldn't want to see you retire in hardship, be it financial or as a result of a negative ecological, social or cultural environment, and laughing would be the last thing that I would imagine. What I want to see in the future is the people who choose a mainstream existence to have a reasonably secure and comfortable life, not utopia! Less risks involved seeing they are not directly benefiting from those risks taken by the financially greedy/ambitious types who are sucking up the economy into dams through lax tax and a lack of regulation on financial devises which allowing them to sponge the fruits of the labours of others purely off their accumulated capital and lack of regard for the rights of others over their perceived right to control the means of production- the biggest factor being capital and the access to it, regulations and legal requirements which favour big capital and corporate sectors.
Is your investments in corporate shares limiting the opportunities of your community, as it removes money from the lower classes.
My suggestion regards to Health, Insurance and Financial services, is that there should be public owned entities which set a competitive level which is fair for all and limits the ability of the private sector to exploit the market.
I do hope that in 2050 your proud to be an American and not ashamed of the system which you have a small but not insignificant role to play in. Collective Cultural Conscience is the Key. I hope that it is not considered crazy to care about the standards to which the system I live under is held to.
You are to young to be truly cynical (maybe a 70y.o who is waiting to pull their 401k can be),but I think what you really are saying is, "smart people learn from the mistakes of others" and what you also need to add into your equation is most people will learn from those mistakes, including your politicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...e=player_embedded#t=35