antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
- Thread starter
- #61
frank, you contend that american policy for the last hundred years is anti-american. could that make you and your anti-progress colleagues anti-american? the founding priciples of this country gave deference to the right and obligation for elected officials to shape our policy. not only do you criticize that in your appraisal of the last century of american politics, but you are dead wrong with respect to the proceeds of american policy inasmuch time.
could your examination of reaganomics avail you to the fact that the public finance shift away from the discipline of tax burden, to the spend-thrift borrowing mechanics of virtually every administration following his, is the reason why we have a public finance crisis looming in the future? have you considered that reagan oversaw the biggest swelling of welfare rolls in the history of the program? i argue that that is the direct result of regressing government's investment in industry and infrastructure, leaving welfare or abject poverty as the two alternatives for those who were displaced. i further argue that we are modern americans and dont tolerate americans in abject poverty, unlike you and those who revel in the 19th century way. overall, the aggregate result of a high average income, even if subsidized by the government, results in greater creation of wealth than did exist in the 19th century and before. welcome to the 21st century. many many nations operate as you propose, and they are the least stable countries with the poorest constituents.
the application of income tax, rather than our archaic tariff and debt system, which was catastrophically failing the country's public finances at the turn of the 20th century was the single most sensible public finance move in our history. while you think that states have the wherewithal to defend or promote the wealth of the US, i feel that the direct opposite is the case. instead, our wealth is based on the reality that our coast to coast cooperation has positioned the US as a superpower which anything remotely confederate would preclude. states dont impress me, but i am impressed by the US.
in 1900, the US and mexico were neck and neck, geopolitically. the decisive evolution of our public finances and our willingness to invest the proceeds in the infrastructure of the country, including our social infrastructure, constitute the government's contribution to the fact of the matter today - where mexico pales in comparison to our international influence and domestic wealth, despite sharing much of the same economic factors which we posses.
i could see a case for conservatism, however, those who qualify conservatism as a digression to the 19th century when our odds of survival as a nation were up in the air are just out of touch with history and the way the country and the world works today.
could your examination of reaganomics avail you to the fact that the public finance shift away from the discipline of tax burden, to the spend-thrift borrowing mechanics of virtually every administration following his, is the reason why we have a public finance crisis looming in the future? have you considered that reagan oversaw the biggest swelling of welfare rolls in the history of the program? i argue that that is the direct result of regressing government's investment in industry and infrastructure, leaving welfare or abject poverty as the two alternatives for those who were displaced. i further argue that we are modern americans and dont tolerate americans in abject poverty, unlike you and those who revel in the 19th century way. overall, the aggregate result of a high average income, even if subsidized by the government, results in greater creation of wealth than did exist in the 19th century and before. welcome to the 21st century. many many nations operate as you propose, and they are the least stable countries with the poorest constituents.
the application of income tax, rather than our archaic tariff and debt system, which was catastrophically failing the country's public finances at the turn of the 20th century was the single most sensible public finance move in our history. while you think that states have the wherewithal to defend or promote the wealth of the US, i feel that the direct opposite is the case. instead, our wealth is based on the reality that our coast to coast cooperation has positioned the US as a superpower which anything remotely confederate would preclude. states dont impress me, but i am impressed by the US.
in 1900, the US and mexico were neck and neck, geopolitically. the decisive evolution of our public finances and our willingness to invest the proceeds in the infrastructure of the country, including our social infrastructure, constitute the government's contribution to the fact of the matter today - where mexico pales in comparison to our international influence and domestic wealth, despite sharing much of the same economic factors which we posses.
i could see a case for conservatism, however, those who qualify conservatism as a digression to the 19th century when our odds of survival as a nation were up in the air are just out of touch with history and the way the country and the world works today.