Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by JimBowie1958, Apr 3, 2016.
Race card played and failed.
This dishevelled laddie seems to think he has been appointed referee in a notional card game that is happening in his head. "Race card" is a cliche used by those who have neither the information nor the capacity to think about social issues. To declare it "played" is to indulge in a useless metaphor that contributes nothing to the dialogue. As with most right wing posts, there is no evidence presented and no logical exposition, just a string of jejune cliches that are themselves content free. It is a sad commentary on our public schools to see this sort of thing posted for the world to see.
Of course conservatives don't defend Social Security. Social Security is socialism. It is not an investment, it is not insurance. It is a trans-generational tax program which creates a minimum safety net for old and disabled people who cannot work. The very idea is anethama to conservatives.
In their view, society equals statism equals government theft. For conservatives life is a zero-sum game in which whoever dies with the most money wins. Losers should have the good manners to wander into the forest and die. Only a tiny minority of people used to believe this unChristian, unAmerican nonsense until Big Business began pumping the idea over the airwaves as a stalking horse for political corruption by the Robber Barons.
The anonymity of the Internet is, IMO, the cause of that. Were these folks to have found themselves in a forum such as those of Ancient Greece or Rome, they'd find themselves laughed out or declared comics.
How could it be paid for??
That's easy....just take one month worth of corporate welfare that this administrations gave out - and you could pay for everyone's college for a whole year.
So which is worse? Taking your money and giving it to Wall Street and big business...or to students?
ALL corporate welfare has been brought to you by rules and laws written by Republicans.
Obama is making another attempt at ending inversion.
That is a factual exaggeration. It'd take the equivalent of about one year's corporate welfare to pay for one year of "college for everyone."
Even as someone who benefits from those subsidies and tax breaks, the ethical and philosophical shortfalls of corporate subsidies isn't lost on me. It may be that I'm "biting the hand that feeds me," but I think that the breaks the government gives businesses are wrong in multiple dimensions.
Profit is enough of a motive on its own. That which isn't profitable is rightly something businesses should eschew doing. I detest the idea and verity of the government intervening to make profitable that (specific goods, specific companies, and/or specific industries) which the invisible hands of supply and demand would make extinct.
The reality of how corporate/business taxes work these days is such that how much they pay as income tax is irrelevant because they get it back as a subsidy or future tax break. It's more a matter of "arbitrage via the tax code" than it is their fair contribution to the betterment for all of the nation to which they pay the tax. The system, at a high level is one that can been viewed schematically as:
Monday --> Corp. gives Gov't $.
Tuesday --> Gov't gives Corp $$
Wednesday --> Corp gives Gov't $$$
...and so on.
It'd be different, or at least I'd feel differently about it, were individuals accorded comparable "back and forth," but they are not. If one is stably middle class or higher in income, one pays and gets nothing other than general services. Individuals (most of us who aren't Trump, Gates, Buffet et al) don't get bills and regulations structured for our individual benefit. If one is well off enough, one will find oneself having enough in common with the Trumps and Gates of the world to benefit from the "carve outs" that appear in bills and regulations, but that's not the situation of most of the electorate, yet most of the electorate is who must, at least in part, pay for those carved out subsidies and tax breaks. To me, that's just wrong.
I don't mind that my tax dollar gets used to feed, clothe, educate, house, etc. destitute Tilly and her two kids. I'd rather they be self-sufficient, but if they aren't, well, I have a moral duty to help keep them going until they can be. The government is best situated to (1) find Tilly and (2) undertake the necessary actions to keep her alive and healthy. I'm not thrilled I need to support doing so, but I don't mind doing so because the sum I must pay to do so is negligible relative to the sums I pay overall.
What I mind is when XYZ, Inc., in its quest for ever greater profits/profit margins asks for and gets a subsidy that allows it to persist in doing what it's long done and thereby collecting an extra X millions (or more) in profit. What I want to see is companies forced to innovate to find their profits. I'm perfectly fine with un-innovative companies going the way of the dodo. Being forced to innovate to maintain/grow profit streams is what produces jobs and makes for continuous improvement for everyone involved. Subsidies and tax breaks merely allow companies to avoid having to innovate.
I don't mind the government funding "this or that" research by spending my tax dollar with XYZ, Inc. and/or several of its competitors. I do have a problem with those companies getting exclusive rights to what they discover using that funding. I know just as anyone does that it's all but impossible to say that for a given research project into some new innovation what share of the discoveries accrued from the government (public) funding and what share is due to the company's investment.
I'm not saying XYZ, Inc. be forced to accept the public funding, but I am saying that if they do, they should not get exclusive rights to it or anything evolved from it for the next lustrum to decade after announcing the "terminal" discovery or critical factor that makes "whatever" now possible and profitable.
The key point I'm making is that companies, like individuals, need to make it on their own and unlike individuals, they can be allowed to perish because companies, notwithstanding the ideas of "too big to fail" and "corporate personhood," quite simply are not humans. I care about companies, but not before humans.
Why not remove the cap and let people have a choice of three options:
1. Letting it stay in the same program management scheme it is in. No change for that person at all.
2. Allowing people to manage their SS funds like a 401k. the money is invested by people at the Social Security Administration who would hire the best portfolio managers and hedge fund managers to do so. Downside to this, of course, is that Congress cant keep borrowing from these funds, but I think Congress should ween itself off of Social Security funds any way.
3. A hybrid option of taking some Social Security funds out an managing them like a 401k and also leaving however much they want to in the system.
And yet it began in German y by Otto von Bismark,t he arch-conservative of Europe for generations.
It is not quite as simple as left vrs right, laddie.
I think William F Buckley, George will, Charles Krauthammer, and Pat Buchanan can handle themselves well enough, thank you.
It will not happen seeing Congress will be held by the GOP if he become President...
Separate names with a comma.