The problem with a strong centralized government is that they lack humility

[Antiderivative]

I believe in more local and decentralized government. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Read the title of the OP.

Instead, you behave like a ******* idiot and think that I am for a more stronger and centralized government. You are a ******* idiot.

I Never claimed you were for anything bud. You need to stop making assumptions. I simply disputed your premise that the problem with having a strong government is they Lack Humanity. I simply stated that I think the main problem is that they are Human, and therefore flawed, and corruptible.

I did not assume you were for stronger Centralized government, until you responded by calling me an idiot, and not saying why. When All I had done was agree with wanting more local government, but dispute which reason was most important for wanting it.

I said that they lack humility, not humanity.

Perhaps, it is time to go see the eye doctor.

 

[Charles_Main]

I Never claimed you were for anything bud. You need to stop making assumptions. I simply disputed your premise that the problem with having a strong government is they Lack Humanity. I simply stated that I think the main problem is that they are Human, and therefore flawed, and corruptible.

I did not assume you were for stronger Centralized government, until you responded by calling me an idiot, and not saying why. When All I had done was agree with wanting more local government, but dispute which reason was most important for wanting it.

I said that they lack humility, not humanity.

Perhaps, it is time to go see the eye doctor.

ROFLMAO so you did, and maybe I should. Sorry about that.

Though it really does not change anything. They lack Humility for sure, The lack many things, Because they are flawed human Beings corrupted by power.

So basically we are in full agreement on the matter. We even Agree I need glasses.

 

[TheBrain]

I think our current tax code is appalling. I'll leave it up to you to draw a yes/no answer from that.

Not good enough. That doesn't tell us shit. I want to know, are you okay with 40% of Americans paying NO income tax? Yes or no. Don't be an RDean type coward. Just come out and say that I am correct the problem with our economy isn't that the rich don't pay enough taxes. The problem is that the lower middle class and poor pay NO taxes.

Come on, just be an honest poster here. Promise you won't turn to a pillar of salt or anything.

I hate the ******* income tax. It is basically a war mongering tax.

Again, I will leave you to draw your own y/n conclusion from my statement. I have faith in you.

I have NO faith in your ability to be an honest poster. I gave you a chance, but you didn't care to take it. I'm done.

 

[Antiderivative]

I have NO faith in your ability to be an honest poster. I gave you a chance, but you didn't care to take it. I'm done.

You are being insincere. You are asking me to operate in a framework when I don't think your framework is the best place to operate in.

The whole idea of the income tax is ludicrous, yet you keep on asking me whether I agree with certain parts of it or not.

You can't see the trees from the forest.

 

[Antiderivative]

I said that they lack humility, not humanity.

Perhaps, it is time to go see the eye doctor.

ROFLMAO so you did, and maybe I should. Sorry about that.

Though it really does not change anything. They lack Humility for sure, The lack many things, Because they are flawed human Beings corrupted by power.

So basically we are in full agreement on the matter. We even Agree I need glasses.

lol....politicians do get corrupted by power and then they expand on this power. Hence, why a strong and centralized government lacks humility. You can't be both humble and power freaks for special interest groups at the same time.

It is cool that we are on the same page now and resolved this misunderstanding.

 

[editec]

I see very littel evidence that small government is any less likely to become corrupted than big government.

About the only advantage is that you know the name (and possible the address) of the person you'll love or hate in smaller governments.

 

[Antiderivative]

I see very littel evidence that small government is any less likely to become corrupted than big government.

About the only advantage is that you know the name (and possible the address) of the person you'll love or hate in smaller governments.

You are right that small governments can get corrupted as much as big government. However, ordinary people will have more power to combat that corruption under a small and decentralized government than a big government.

 

[TheBrain]

I have NO faith in your ability to be an honest poster. I gave you a chance, but you didn't care to take it. I'm done.

You are being insincere. You are asking me to operate in a framework when I don't think your framework is the best place to operate in.

The whole idea of the income tax is ludicrous, yet you keep on asking me whether I agree with certain parts of it or not.

You can't see the trees from the forest.

no sir, let's forget the current system and it's flaws.

are you okay with 40% of AMericans paying nothing to the federal government? It really is that simple.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The rich benefit very well by living in America. They also lobby very hard to pass policies that benefit them. We spend billions on useless corporate welfare.

However, kooks fail to recognize this fact. Instead, they think that the uber rich are the most victimized segment of society.

It is truly amazing.

I would submit that when 1% of the population is paying 37% of the bills then perhaps they should in fact have more of a say in the way the country is ran than the 40% who pay NONE of the bills.

That's how it works in my home. I pay the bills so I tell my kids (who don't pay the bills) how things are going to be. ANd yes sometimes that means that it appears that the rules benefit me more. Do you allow your kids to run your house?

The last thing we need in this country is more special interest lobbyist. However, this is what rw kooks want. Instead of wanting a humble republic, they want a strong and centralized corporation.

What the **** is a humble republic?

 

[Antiderivative]

I have NO faith in your ability to be an honest poster. I gave you a chance, but you didn't care to take it. I'm done.

You are being insincere. You are asking me to operate in a framework when I don't think your framework is the best place to operate in.

The whole idea of the income tax is ludicrous, yet you keep on asking me whether I agree with certain parts of it or not.

You can't see the trees from the forest.

no sir, let's forget the current system and it's flaws.

are you okay with 40% of AMericans paying nothing to the federal government? It really is that simple.

I will tell you again that I am against the income tax.

Around and round we go.

If you are asking me if I believe in progressive taxation. Then I will say yes, but to a degree.

 

[Antiderivative]

What the **** is a humble republic?

It is what we have now....lol. A strong and centralized government that is out of control.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Accumulated wealth is centralized power because it allows you to buy government and media.

Bill Gates Sr. is very clear on this
Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why ... - Google Books

Republican voters are being lead to believe that the wealthy don't have centralized control over government, media, and markets. They are making Orwell roll over in his grave

It is so disturbing that the right thinks that the government works against the wealthy instead of working for them.

However, that is what happens when you jack off to Ayn Rand and become emotionally immature.

Consumption taxes are the most damaging economically. Why would you prefer to use them than something that has the least impact economically? I do agree that taxing investments is stupid though.

 

[Antiderivative]

Consumption taxes are the most damaging economically. Why would you prefer to use them than something that has the least impact economically? I do agree that taxing investments is stupid though.

I believe that saving and investing is better for the economy than unabashed consumption.

However, many people disagree with this simple analysis, including high level economists.

Economic growth comes through investment, not consumption. It amazes me that people think the opposite.

 

[Londoner]

I would submit that when 1% of the population is paying 37% of the bills then perhaps they should in fact have more of a say in the way the country is ran than the 40% who pay NONE of the bills.

During the postwar years, when capital paid higher labor costs to sustain a vibrant upwardly mobile middle class, more Americans paid taxes. Unfortunately, capital decided it wanted cheaper labor in America. So we spent 30 years lowering the wages and benefits of the working class. Small problem: it became increasingly hard to draw revenue from people who could not afford rent, medical care, or education for their children (even with 2 jobs). And it became increasingly hard to find productive investments for the massive surplus wealth on top. But yes, of course you can tell the people at the bottom to get better jobs, but you can't erase the bottom 40% of serfs who no longer have enough skin in the game to pay taxes.

Starting in 1980, we made one class of people insanely wealthy by lowering their labor costs and taxes -- but, as a consequence, another class now lives well below the poverty line. While we depend on these poor workers to fill these low paying jobs, if they were a bridge, they'd crumble.

America used to be the one place on the globe where hard workers lived above the poverty line. This is why Reagan claimed moral authority over the Soviet Union, because Soviet workers lived in shit, along with the 3rd world. Who knew that Reagan was laying the foundations to bring cheap labor to America? Who knew he was waging war on 40% of America?

In 1970, we didn't have single hedge fund managers who made more than all of the high school teachers in NYC combined. There was a social contract. If you were willing to work hard, than you would not live in sewage or go bankrupt paying for monopolized health insurance. This is what made us different from the rest of the world: our workers lived human lives and had upward mobility. But that contact ended in order to raise the profits of corporations and their shareholders. Point is: if you want cheap serfs with no health care, and no retirement, than you are going to have trouble drawing revenue from them. We spent 30 years lowering their wages, benefits, and government support (while subsidizing and bailing out their bosses). It is embarrassing that 40% of the population can't support themselves (much less a family) on 40 hrs of work, or 60 hrs. If you want to get revenue from these hard workers, than give them some skin in the game.

Same thing with consumption. We created an economy which depended on high levels of middle class spending. This worked perfectly during the postwar years when average workers had higher wages, benefits, and government support (the kind of support now given to Wall Street for creating derivatives that destroy the economy). Unfortunately, something funny happened in 1980. We decided to lower the wages/benefits/support of the middle class in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Consequently, the average consumer didn't have enough money to buy things (at the rate needed to sustain job growth). So what did we do? We gave them credit cards. We created debt-fueled consumption to make up for the fact that the profits were not trickling down (as promised) into middle class demand.

The movement toward cheap labor had 2 consequences.

1) We created historic surplus wealth inside the upper class. They now have so much capital that Wall Street cannot find sufficient investment opportunities (which has lead to the speculative phantom economy of steroidal tech IPOs and credit default swaps.)

2) The working class doesn't have sufficient money to consume or pay taxes. Meaning: the move toward cheap labor had the effect of firing consumers and tax payers. This is what subsistence wages do.

 

[Antiderivative]

While I agree with many of your sentiments I don't agree with your thesis. Moving towards "cheap labor" didn't cause the problem.

Out of control crony capitalism and corporatism caused this problem and simply applying stronger labor laws will not solve our problem.

 

[TheBrain]

You are being insincere. You are asking me to operate in a framework when I don't think your framework is the best place to operate in.

The whole idea of the income tax is ludicrous, yet you keep on asking me whether I agree with certain parts of it or not.

You can't see the trees from the forest.

no sir, let's forget the current system and it's flaws.

are you okay with 40% of AMericans paying nothing to the federal government? It really is that simple.

I will tell you again that I am against the income tax.

Around and round we go.

If you are asking me if I believe in progressive taxation. Then I will say yes, but to a degree.

Sir, I am asking a simple question. Are you okay with ANY system which allows 40% of the population to not pay ANY taxes? It only requires a yes or no, not your deflection BS.

 

[Antiderivative]

no sir, let's forget the current system and it's flaws.

are you okay with 40% of AMericans paying nothing to the federal government? It really is that simple.

I will tell you again that I am against the income tax.

Around and round we go.

If you are asking me if I believe in progressive taxation. Then I will say yes, but to a degree.

Sir, I am asking a simple question. Are you okay with ANY system which allows 40% of the population to not pay ANY taxes? It only requires a yes or no, not your deflection BS.

You are asking a question within a framework that I disagree with.

Again, you can't see the trees from the forest.

 

[TheBrain]

I will tell you again that I am against the income tax.

Around and round we go.

If you are asking me if I believe in progressive taxation. Then I will say yes, but to a degree.

Sir, I am asking a simple question. Are you okay with ANY system which allows 40% of the population to not pay ANY taxes? It only requires a yes or no, not your deflection BS.

You are asking a question within a framework that I disagree with.

Again, you can't see the trees from the forest.

Oh, I see very clearly. It's alright we know the answer.

 

[Antiderivative]

Oh, I see very clearly. It's alright we know the answer.

Please elucidate us on your self-righteous answer polluted by your misguided worldview.

 

[Flopper]

Movement Conservatism has convinced people that we still live in the time of Adam Smith, before corporations became powerful enough to buy elections, staff government, and capture regulators.

We no longer live in the world of Ayn Rand, whose father's pharmacy was stolen by the Russian government.

Today, the pharmaceutical industry owns government.

A handful of of transnational corporations have used their financial leverage to buy not just one government, but governments across multiple continents. The point of globalization was to give capital centralized control over the world's labor and resources - this required a centralized set of laws and regulations, i.e., uniform conditions (so it could link supply chains across very different regions) and open borders (so capital could flow efficiently to the cheapest labor and resources).

Which is to say: capital requires conditions that completely contradict the kinds of localized freedom and "small market" competition the Rightwing voter seeks to achieve.

[One would think the GOP voter would see this contradiction -- and perhaps create a post Adam Smith critique of today's globalized hyper-capitalism -- but the Right has created a very powerful message machine, which constantly recycles the same tired cliches about free markets versus government planning. The Rightwing voter does not understand that Big Business is now doing the central planning, i.e., business has captured and enlarged the centralizing power of government in ways Adam Smith would never have accepted]

(Do people understand the amount of lobbying money that is pumped into Washington? Do they understand what that money is for? Eli Lilly paid to get rid of foreign competition so it could drive drug prices up. Big oil paid to crush energy competition. The problem is no longer government, it's the interests which own it)

AIG is larger than the Edinburgh Adam Smith grew up in. He would puke if he saw the power of transnational corporations over markets and governments.

The rightwing voter has been turned into the greatest useful idiot in history.

(There are people on these boards who haven't even finished "Wealth of Nations", and they've never researched the ways capitalism has evolved since Hayek wrote "The Road To Serfdom". These well-meaning, passionate morons are just repeating talking points that were crafted in Think Tanks)

(wow)

(just wow)

(help)

Unfortunately, consumers and voters have come to believe the bigger the better. Better meaning cheaper. But there is a dark side. When businesses become large enough, they can control their suppliers dictating not only price but also product development. They limit customer choice by eliminating specialized products, selling only those products in the greatest demand. When customers look for those products, the big stores have driven the specialty stores out of business. When government is a problem, they buy politicians as they buy truckloads of cereal.

Wal-Mart and Target dominate the general merchandising sector of the market. Three cell phone companies have an 81% market share. Although there are thousands of small breweries, 2 brewers have a 90% share of the market. Microsoft has a 90% market share in the computer operating system market. These and hundreds of other large corporations kill competition, the lifeblood of the free market.