georgephillip
Diamond Member
Democracy or plutocracy?
Do you care?
Do you care?
Aren't the dems the ones that are always crying about equality? That is what we want: equality with taxes (that way when the government wants to spend 10,000,000 dollars studying cow farts, all citizens will be "equally" outraged, not just the ones that actually have a large chunk of their pay going to the government).
Why do dues in some places cost so much than in other places for similar services?
Do you think the difference might be that 10% of the population are not looking for the government to make things right in their lives? Do you think that maybe 90% of the people are expecting the government to "magically" give them wealth (in some shape or form)?
Honestly? I don't know. I don't mean to get too general, but when people make 'observations' about the state of things, it seems they're generally making said observation as way of saying something else. As an example, there's a poster on this forum that loves to note environmental happenings.......it was the hottest year on record, or this glacier is retreating.....okay? What's his point? His point is of course that what he thinks man is doing to the climate is getting out of hand and must be remedied.
In the case of this topic I don't know what the point is. What is someone really trying to say? I don't argue the numbers. But some apparently think this is a disparity that needs to be corrected. Okay, how? Is some benevolent beauracrat supposed to go around making sure everyone has the 'right' amount of money? I don't know what the 90% want. I guess I would consider myself part of that group though and I for one certainly don't expect anyone but me to provide for me. I certainly don't expect someone to just give me whatever amount of money I deem to be enough.
The more I try and wrap my head around it the more befuddling it becomes. I think we all agree that basically the individual is repsonsible for obtaining whatever amount of money they want (as oppossed to it being given), right? (do correct me if there's a disagreement there) So when someone points out that money is not evenly distributed or less evenly distributed or being concentrated in a small group of people, what should I conclude? Should I not conclude that those responsible for how wealth is distributed aren't doing something right?
Last edited:
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
None, zip, zilch, nada, only earned income is taxed.
The wage earners pay the bulk of all taxes, the truly wealthy pay almost nothing in taxes. The truly wealthy do not work for the common wage.
When CON$ give stats about the "rich" paying a huge amount of taxes, they are not talking about the truly wealthy. They are talking about the richest middle class WAGE EARNERS. CON$ always dishonestly use ADJUSTED TAXABLE INCOME which does not include unrealized capital gains INCOME as income. The bulk of the income of the truly wealthy is in the form of unrealized capital gains so the bulk of the income of the truly wealthy goes untaxed.
The middle class wage earner pays the bulk of all taxes and the middle class wage earner gets screwed by BOTH Parties.
Umm no ed. The reason why unrealized capital gains aren't counted as income is because, by definition, they aren't income. To 'realize' a gain in investments and thus make it truly income, you have to take possession of the gain. If your stock portfolio's VALUE increased from 50k to 100k you only get taxed if you actually take the money out of the system THEN the government can tax you on the 50k.
and no we aren't talking about the middle class wage earners. Even they don't have enough money to account for the majority of income tax revenue.
It's another mind boggler to see people complain about the tax advantages the rich take instead of, gosh I don't know, taking advantage of those tax loopholes or whatever you wan to call them, themselves. Equally mind boggling that it seems you want government to take even more of people's money as opposed to figuring out how to do with less.
Last edited:
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
That would entail taking actions as do the people they profess to disdain the most.
Interesting dilemma, ain't it?
"Who" is responsible for how wealth is distributed? If there was X amount of money, that would be the case. We trade/barter to many things, we use money as the common language. Once there was limited resources: food, jewels, metals. Today, you can make your own wealth: produce a product from wood, plastic, cloth, plastic, liquid, etc. You can specialize: "organic" food, "hand-crafted", "custom". You can produce art: sculpture, painting, etc. Now the individual determines how many hours they work and how many hours they use to improve their skills.
That being said, once money is exchanged for service or product, what does the "individual" do with it?
I know a person that worked for a company for a little over minimum wage. They shopped garage sales and clipped coupons. They were promoted because of their work ethics. They were careful with their money. Twenty years later their house is paid off, and they can buy just about whatever they want. They still shop at garage sales and are frugal. They have money "in the bank".
Another man that makes "good money", increased the number of tax deductions so he could get more money per check. He buys toys for top dollar and sells them at giagantic losses. He does not contribute to a 401K (the government will take care of him with social security). He maxes out his credit cards and credit. He is always whining about not having enough money.
Both of these people are in the top 10%. Which one do you think will be voting dem so that his "benefits" (social security) will be there when he retires. The dems own him for as long as they support giving government (our) money to others (he does not see himself as wealthy). When he retires and gets his only form of support (social security), I imagine every person in the county will know how "wronged" he was.
When do we take responsibility for ourselves? If you can make money, you should be able to use it, wisely. If not, you should be willing to live with the consequences. The government should not take money off the person that scrimped and sacrificed to give it to the person that spent every dime they ever got.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Stocks are not the only capital asset, so is real estate. As the assets increase in value they are not taxed, kind of like an unlimited IRA with no penalty for early withdrawal. And that advantage is not enough for the greedy, when those assets are finally realized the tax rate is lower than the tax on earned income. If the assets are passed on after death, the first 5 million of the so far untaxed unrealized gain goes untaxed.
I say ALL income no matter what the source should be taxed equally with a flat tax and no deductions of any kind.
I guess if we have to tax income I don't have a problem taxing it all at the same rate (though I would prefer NO income at all be taxed in favor of a flat consumption tax). I'm simply stating that a gain in the value of something is not, in of itself, income. By definition it's only income when you 'realize' the gain of that value.
"Wealth isn't distributed...It's earned and accumulated, "
I still think this is the funniest nonsense I have ever read...(except for everything righteous1 types)
wealth is distributed according to position and favoritism...
which is why;
a those doing the distributing have so much wealth
and
b. atheletes, who have EARNED NOTHING, also have so much
as much as I like tiger woods there is NO WAY he has EARNED a billion dollars....
Bern, you need to be a more careful reader and even more careful writer. Reread very carefully what you have written in your previous posts concerning the ‘flaw’ issue. You have managed to change your message by narrowing it down, finally, but it took you several posts to do it with accuracy. You have to make sure that the context of your statements are accurately written to the limit of your actual meaning and not to reasonably include things that you don’t mean.
Statements viewed as criticisms of the poor, especially blanket criticisms made by those who are not among the poor, along with other things, contribute to the instigation of class warfare. Bern80 is doing it yet again saying “many of the poor are poor because of the choices they've made”. He said it twice in the same paragraph. Saying “many of the rich are wealthy because of their greed” or “many of the top 10% wealthy people are getting away with being greedy” and then leave it at that, would be viewed as a criticism of the rich. Naivite about what constitutes criticism in the real world is no defense. Again I challenge Bern80 to be forthright and honest and say what he really thinks and stand up and tell us just what proportion of the poor (there are over 43.6 million Americans living in poverty today) you think are poor because of their poor choices. Don’t wimp out again by being intellectually dishonest and evasive like you did on the question of what proportion of lopsided wealth would be bad in YOUR OPINION (not the ‘actual’ proportion in the real world, just your opinion). I would have given you the benefit of the doubt because of your lack of careful reading, but, I am beginning to see a pattern of spin that I view as becoming quite deliberate.
Wow, “Tax breaks to wealthy people are arguably the most beneficial of tax breaks because that group has more money at their disposal to be used for a variety of things”. Bern, are you insane? “…used for a variety of things”, really? First of all, I would argue that “giving” (your term) money to the rich is the worst thing for the economy. That would just make the lopsidedness of the concentration of wealth and income at the top even worse. You already sheepishly admitted that too lopsided is probably bad. Then you went on to cowardly say that you have “no idea” what degree of lopsidedness would be bad. What a massive cop out. I’m pretty sure now that if I asked Bern80 “would it be bad for the economy if the top 1% owned 60% of the wealth and the top 10% owned 90% of the wealth and 91% of all the voting corporate stock?”, Bern80 would say “uh, I don’t know, I have no idea”. At best Bern might say, “it might or would ‘PROBABLY’ be bad for the economy”. He likes to use the word ‘probably’ because he’s afraid of being on record as being committal to a truth that weakens his arguments. Very, very common and ubiquitous language by righties when they are cornered.
Also, I believe that putting the money in the hands unemployed is multiples better for the economy because all of it would be spent on consumables thereby increasing sorely need demand, not to mention the tremendous good it would do for the unemployed and their families at this very moment. Even Bern said that the wealthy would spend their tax break on “a variety of things”. How in hell is that better than spending on consumables like rent, food, transportation, heat, needed clothing, needed medical care, and the basics of life that directly, almost dollar for dollar, increase basic economic demand that this economy desperately needs? Compare that spending to “…a variety of things” by the wealthy that Bern advocates. Geez Louise, can you really compare the good it does for the unemployed compared to the ‘good’ such marginal disposable income increase does for the top 2% earners who’s households make over $250K? Give me a break, what hubris! Tell me, Bern and the rest of you who think like he does, how does an additional $3,000 make one damn bit of material difference to a household that has $350,000 of income? You know, trickle down economics has been thoroughly discredited, even Bush Sr. called it “Voodoo Economics”. In my opinion, the hubris and the arrogance of trickle downers are an abomination to America.
The righties will say glibly, “this tax break money in the hands of the wealthy will be invested in production that employs people”. Well, I ask, “How much of it will go directly and only into production that employs people, and how much per annum will that specific investment generate in increase in employees earnings in 2011 and/or 2012 and/or 2013?” Bern, you don’t have a damn clue. Even Milton Friedman said that spending patterns don’t change either predictably nor generally at all in the short term with increases to income. .
I’m going to pull a right wing ploy and ask this admittedly ad hominem-like question, “If the tax break for the wealthy is so great for the economy, why is our unemployment rate so high today after 10 years of the tax break?” I enjoy myself by throwing the very common right wing illogic into the right wing face.
By the way, Bern, can you give us some specifics on what “…providing care to those that need it” in the context of this discussion looks like? You kind of rambled on positing almost rhetorical questions like you usually do while being noncommittal. I know you’re trying to go somewhere with it, hopefully more definitive than, “Can’t we all just get along”.
Boy, your anti-minimum wage argument is a tired old argument. When the cost of production goes up, be it labor or materials or overhead, it reduces profit in the short term. But, the significant thing to know is that labor is just an element in the cost, the price doesn’t change in the short term because prices are determined by the market generally and are slow to change. And, when profit is made both before or after an increase to cost of production, by using deductive reasoning, all the costs were indeed covered, and low and behold, there is still a profit, albeit smaller than before the cost increase. If the price were to increase, say by the exact amount of cost increase, then generally the profit would increase a bit but yield less profit than before the cost and price change. That is classical economics, neoclassical economics, and the more recent ‘fusion economics’. The point being that for profitable businesses, increase in the marginal unemployment rate to keep pace with the general price level makes sense on a variety of levels. Generally, for the breakeven or unprofitable enterprises, it is up to them to get more efficient, market better, manage better, innovate, or change the product, same for those that were profitable and became breakeven or unprofitable. After all, they are getting the market price, and if their competition can make a profit, they need to get back to the drawing board. That’s the American way.
To marginally increase the minimum wage to keep pace with the general price level makes all the sense in the world.
To hide behind the argument that raising the minimum wage just hurts the very people it is intended to help is specious. While there may be a theoretical short term increase to the unemployed (would love to see the stats), the overall all income to them is increased, and in the short term hiring does attain and regain the previous equilibrium at the new wage. It is an overall benefit to the minimum wage earners and it is good for the country, and it is good for the minimum wage earners.
If the minimum wage is kept the same forever or if it is eliminated as the righties would love to do, you know and I know that would lead to an increase in the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top. Come on, a minimum wage of $7.25 only yields only $15,080/yr full time if you can get full time. A person can barely function if at all on that in this country, especially if that is supposed to take care of more than one person. $3,000 tax break for the household earning $350,000 per year juxtaposed to not raising the minimum wage by a few cents for the family on minimum wage, that’s just blatantly sick. Now that wreaks of greed! There are “many” rigties out there that should be ashamed of themselves, “probably”.
Statements viewed as criticisms of the poor, especially blanket criticisms made by those who are not among the poor, along with other things, contribute to the instigation of class warfare. Bern80 is doing it yet again saying “many of the poor are poor because of the choices they've made”. He said it twice in the same paragraph. Saying “many of the rich are wealthy because of their greed” or “many of the top 10% wealthy people are getting away with being greedy” and then leave it at that, would be viewed as a criticism of the rich. Naivite about what constitutes criticism in the real world is no defense. Again I challenge Bern80 to be forthright and honest and say what he really thinks and stand up and tell us just what proportion of the poor (there are over 43.6 million Americans living in poverty today) you think are poor because of their poor choices. Don’t wimp out again by being intellectually dishonest and evasive like you did on the question of what proportion of lopsided wealth would be bad in YOUR OPINION (not the ‘actual’ proportion in the real world, just your opinion). I would have given you the benefit of the doubt because of your lack of careful reading, but, I am beginning to see a pattern of spin that I view as becoming quite deliberate.
Wow, “Tax breaks to wealthy people are arguably the most beneficial of tax breaks because that group has more money at their disposal to be used for a variety of things”. Bern, are you insane? “…used for a variety of things”, really? First of all, I would argue that “giving” (your term) money to the rich is the worst thing for the economy. That would just make the lopsidedness of the concentration of wealth and income at the top even worse. You already sheepishly admitted that too lopsided is probably bad. Then you went on to cowardly say that you have “no idea” what degree of lopsidedness would be bad. What a massive cop out. I’m pretty sure now that if I asked Bern80 “would it be bad for the economy if the top 1% owned 60% of the wealth and the top 10% owned 90% of the wealth and 91% of all the voting corporate stock?”, Bern80 would say “uh, I don’t know, I have no idea”. At best Bern might say, “it might or would ‘PROBABLY’ be bad for the economy”. He likes to use the word ‘probably’ because he’s afraid of being on record as being committal to a truth that weakens his arguments. Very, very common and ubiquitous language by righties when they are cornered.
Also, I believe that putting the money in the hands unemployed is multiples better for the economy because all of it would be spent on consumables thereby increasing sorely need demand, not to mention the tremendous good it would do for the unemployed and their families at this very moment. Even Bern said that the wealthy would spend their tax break on “a variety of things”. How in hell is that better than spending on consumables like rent, food, transportation, heat, needed clothing, needed medical care, and the basics of life that directly, almost dollar for dollar, increase basic economic demand that this economy desperately needs? Compare that spending to “…a variety of things” by the wealthy that Bern advocates. Geez Louise, can you really compare the good it does for the unemployed compared to the ‘good’ such marginal disposable income increase does for the top 2% earners who’s households make over $250K? Give me a break, what hubris! Tell me, Bern and the rest of you who think like he does, how does an additional $3,000 make one damn bit of material difference to a household that has $350,000 of income? You know, trickle down economics has been thoroughly discredited, even Bush Sr. called it “Voodoo Economics”. In my opinion, the hubris and the arrogance of trickle downers are an abomination to America.
The righties will say glibly, “this tax break money in the hands of the wealthy will be invested in production that employs people”. Well, I ask, “How much of it will go directly and only into production that employs people, and how much per annum will that specific investment generate in increase in employees earnings in 2011 and/or 2012 and/or 2013?” Bern, you don’t have a damn clue. Even Milton Friedman said that spending patterns don’t change either predictably nor generally at all in the short term with increases to income. .
I’m going to pull a right wing ploy and ask this admittedly ad hominem-like question, “If the tax break for the wealthy is so great for the economy, why is our unemployment rate so high today after 10 years of the tax break?” I enjoy myself by throwing the very common right wing illogic into the right wing face.
By the way, Bern, can you give us some specifics on what “…providing care to those that need it” in the context of this discussion looks like? You kind of rambled on positing almost rhetorical questions like you usually do while being noncommittal. I know you’re trying to go somewhere with it, hopefully more definitive than, “Can’t we all just get along”.
Boy, your anti-minimum wage argument is a tired old argument. When the cost of production goes up, be it labor or materials or overhead, it reduces profit in the short term. But, the significant thing to know is that labor is just an element in the cost, the price doesn’t change in the short term because prices are determined by the market generally and are slow to change. And, when profit is made both before or after an increase to cost of production, by using deductive reasoning, all the costs were indeed covered, and low and behold, there is still a profit, albeit smaller than before the cost increase. If the price were to increase, say by the exact amount of cost increase, then generally the profit would increase a bit but yield less profit than before the cost and price change. That is classical economics, neoclassical economics, and the more recent ‘fusion economics’. The point being that for profitable businesses, increase in the marginal unemployment rate to keep pace with the general price level makes sense on a variety of levels. Generally, for the breakeven or unprofitable enterprises, it is up to them to get more efficient, market better, manage better, innovate, or change the product, same for those that were profitable and became breakeven or unprofitable. After all, they are getting the market price, and if their competition can make a profit, they need to get back to the drawing board. That’s the American way.
To marginally increase the minimum wage to keep pace with the general price level makes all the sense in the world.
To hide behind the argument that raising the minimum wage just hurts the very people it is intended to help is specious. While there may be a theoretical short term increase to the unemployed (would love to see the stats), the overall all income to them is increased, and in the short term hiring does attain and regain the previous equilibrium at the new wage. It is an overall benefit to the minimum wage earners and it is good for the country, and it is good for the minimum wage earners.
If the minimum wage is kept the same forever or if it is eliminated as the righties would love to do, you know and I know that would lead to an increase in the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top. Come on, a minimum wage of $7.25 only yields only $15,080/yr full time if you can get full time. A person can barely function if at all on that in this country, especially if that is supposed to take care of more than one person. $3,000 tax break for the household earning $350,000 per year juxtaposed to not raising the minimum wage by a few cents for the family on minimum wage, that’s just blatantly sick. Now that wreaks of greed! There are “many” rigties out there that should be ashamed of themselves, “probably”.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Of course it's income, "unrealized" income, but income none the less.
And a consumption tax is equally as unfair as our present tax system. The wealthy consume only a very small part of their wealth whereas the poor and lower middle class not only consume all of their income but they consume themselves into debt.
Let me ask you if you would approve of replacing all taxes with corporate taxes. I wouldn't, but would you?
You're right on Rikules.
Want an example of a rank distribution of wealth. A surgeon getting a fee of $6,000 for a three hour heart surgery. Now, righties would say if you don't eliminate the tax break for the wealthy, then that 3% federal income tax that the surgeon would have to pay on his income above $250K is the unfair inequitable transfer of wealth from the surgeon to the bad, bad government (keep in mind that the righties are saying that the government is currently bad because it is currently too big and because government itself is inherently 'the problem'. I think that is Unamerican and unpatriotic to say that.). The difference is that I say the inequitable distribution happens when a person in the bottom 98% has to pay health ins premiums and/or the $6,000 surgical fee itself. That's where and when the distribution is really taking place. It was a massive distribution of that patient's wealth. Now multiply that by all the heart surgeries that the bottom 98% have to pay for.
This is one of my major points. The distribution of wealth happens early on in the economic process. As I have said before, it happens when you pay an attorney $400+ per hour, or you pay your CPA $350 to do a simple tax return, or when you pay $150 or more for concert tickets or professional sports tickets, and the list goes on. However, the real bleed also happens in the smaller and numerous expenditures as well, and to a larger cumulative effect. That's why so many are so wealthy. Now, that doesn't mean that Kobe is a bad guy or a mean selfish exploiter. It is not a comment on him or his character at all. The general blame for these inequities is in our economic system itself. I don't blame Kobe for getting as much income as he can. He's not the problem, nor are most high income earners the problem per se. It is a 'built- in problem', a structural problem, a political problem, a legal problem, a policy problem that are all reflected in our economic system that yields these lopsided inequities.
When there are so many people with so much unbelievable income and stashes of wealth, where this country is the second worst country in the world for disparity between the top minority and the vast bottom majority, the stats that 1% of the top own 34% of the wealth, top 10% own 71%, top 15% own 85% and the bottom 60% only have a meager 4%, well, that is a snapshot of where the wealth has gone, and most of it is due to the early on distribution that I describe.
Look up the "Gini Coeffiient" and the "L" curve. Those are easy and quick internet searches. It will blow your mind.
Did you know that the top 10% wealth holders in this country own 91% of the voting stock in America.
Does it tell you who actually controls corporate America? So what?, as the righties would say. Could it be the top 10%? I think so. You know that the corporations can now make donations to any political party that they want without their having to disclose it? We can thank the right wing Supreme Court for that massive defect in our laws of the land. Ask yourself, "how significant or influencial corporate America is in influencing who gets elected and what legislation actually gets passed and not passed. 10% own 91%! Ask yourself just how much do lobbiests and corporate America spend on political donations and what proportion of all campaign funds comes from such donations.
10% owns 91%
Want an example of a rank distribution of wealth. A surgeon getting a fee of $6,000 for a three hour heart surgery. Now, righties would say if you don't eliminate the tax break for the wealthy, then that 3% federal income tax that the surgeon would have to pay on his income above $250K is the unfair inequitable transfer of wealth from the surgeon to the bad, bad government (keep in mind that the righties are saying that the government is currently bad because it is currently too big and because government itself is inherently 'the problem'. I think that is Unamerican and unpatriotic to say that.). The difference is that I say the inequitable distribution happens when a person in the bottom 98% has to pay health ins premiums and/or the $6,000 surgical fee itself. That's where and when the distribution is really taking place. It was a massive distribution of that patient's wealth. Now multiply that by all the heart surgeries that the bottom 98% have to pay for.
This is one of my major points. The distribution of wealth happens early on in the economic process. As I have said before, it happens when you pay an attorney $400+ per hour, or you pay your CPA $350 to do a simple tax return, or when you pay $150 or more for concert tickets or professional sports tickets, and the list goes on. However, the real bleed also happens in the smaller and numerous expenditures as well, and to a larger cumulative effect. That's why so many are so wealthy. Now, that doesn't mean that Kobe is a bad guy or a mean selfish exploiter. It is not a comment on him or his character at all. The general blame for these inequities is in our economic system itself. I don't blame Kobe for getting as much income as he can. He's not the problem, nor are most high income earners the problem per se. It is a 'built- in problem', a structural problem, a political problem, a legal problem, a policy problem that are all reflected in our economic system that yields these lopsided inequities.
When there are so many people with so much unbelievable income and stashes of wealth, where this country is the second worst country in the world for disparity between the top minority and the vast bottom majority, the stats that 1% of the top own 34% of the wealth, top 10% own 71%, top 15% own 85% and the bottom 60% only have a meager 4%, well, that is a snapshot of where the wealth has gone, and most of it is due to the early on distribution that I describe.
Look up the "Gini Coeffiient" and the "L" curve. Those are easy and quick internet searches. It will blow your mind.
Did you know that the top 10% wealth holders in this country own 91% of the voting stock in America.
Does it tell you who actually controls corporate America? So what?, as the righties would say. Could it be the top 10%? I think so. You know that the corporations can now make donations to any political party that they want without their having to disclose it? We can thank the right wing Supreme Court for that massive defect in our laws of the land. Ask yourself, "how significant or influencial corporate America is in influencing who gets elected and what legislation actually gets passed and not passed. 10% own 91%! Ask yourself just how much do lobbiests and corporate America spend on political donations and what proportion of all campaign funds comes from such donations.
10% owns 91%
Last edited:
Edthecynic, man, you are so right. I am getting giddy. Well stated!
One thing that would be more ruinous than the current tax system is a flat tax on income or a flat tax on consumption. If the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top is bad now, it would go through the roof with either of those two taxes, if the righties have it their way.
One thing that would be more ruinous than the current tax system is a flat tax on income or a flat tax on consumption. If the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top is bad now, it would go through the roof with either of those two taxes, if the righties have it their way.
georgephillip
Diamond Member
I sense an implicit stance in some of the posts here that conservatives in general favor market outcomes and progressives prefer to rely on government.
If that's the case, the online book by Dean Baker called The Conservative Nanny State might be useful in providing an alternative conception of how conservatives and progressives exploit the power of government to shape market outcomes in ways that redistribute income.
From the Introduction:
"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.
"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.
"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.
"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors.
"They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.
"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages). "
The class war never ends.
Listen for the next salvo in BO's State of the Union speech when he calls for "reform" of Social Security and Medicare benefits.
You will also likely experience some conservative class war during the upcoming Super Bowl which happens to fall on the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth.
Finally, consider the possibility that Karl Marx was absolutely wrong about the solution to capitalism but entirely correct about it becoming a revolutionary force after emasculating government.
Then remind yourselves there are no silver medals in revolutions.
If that's the case, the online book by Dean Baker called The Conservative Nanny State might be useful in providing an alternative conception of how conservatives and progressives exploit the power of government to shape market outcomes in ways that redistribute income.
From the Introduction:
"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.
"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.
"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.
"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors.
"They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.
"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages). "
The class war never ends.
Listen for the next salvo in BO's State of the Union speech when he calls for "reform" of Social Security and Medicare benefits.
You will also likely experience some conservative class war during the upcoming Super Bowl which happens to fall on the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth.
Finally, consider the possibility that Karl Marx was absolutely wrong about the solution to capitalism but entirely correct about it becoming a revolutionary force after emasculating government.
Then remind yourselves there are no silver medals in revolutions.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Sure he did.
There are very few people in the world who can play golf as well as he and a lot of sponsors, spectators and others willing to freely pay their own money to see him play.
That's not favoritism, that's an object lesson in freedom and free markets...No matter how envious you are.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Pure...Unadulterated...Unapologetic...Envy.....Verrrrry gooood.
Your attitude is that of the guy who eats nothing pizza and Twinkies, then blames the scale because you're a big fatass.
Very, very interesting, georgephillip. Spot on, I think.
I have always said that the right wing simply want a strong military so that no foreign interest can come into interfere with the conservative machinations. And, they want a strong police force domestically to enforce the laws that favor their advantage, and that's about the extent of their view for government. Conservatives are consistently against most all other applications of government including but not limited to protection of any kind of the consumer, education, medical care, etc. They are nearly libertarian like Milton Friedman who was against almost any kind of licensing and scrutiny.
For some peculiar reason they keep harkening back to the framers of the constitution and the constitution itself when it was first written. You know, there were only 3 million people in 1776, there was rudimentary science in application, most people were illiterate, the germ theory did not exist, education was severyly limited, monolithic western european culture, they were still burning witches, women couldn't vote, the economy was primarily aggrerian, slavery was everywhere practiced, poor to nonexistant communications, and the country was in the throws of trying to thow off colonial mercantilism. Conservatives believe that environment, limited knowledge, and paradigm that existed at that time was capable of producing a constitution without much alteration and certainly no need for reinterpretation or judicious reapplication bringing it up to dealing with the complexities and reality of today's life in a pluralistic, technologially advanced America and in the world. I don't understand it completely, but there seems to be some connection in the right wing mind between a government limited to a military and a police force, and desire see themselves as 1776 revolutionaries. Very primitive, simplistic, dangerous, out of touch, destructive and unworkable.
I have always said that the right wing simply want a strong military so that no foreign interest can come into interfere with the conservative machinations. And, they want a strong police force domestically to enforce the laws that favor their advantage, and that's about the extent of their view for government. Conservatives are consistently against most all other applications of government including but not limited to protection of any kind of the consumer, education, medical care, etc. They are nearly libertarian like Milton Friedman who was against almost any kind of licensing and scrutiny.
For some peculiar reason they keep harkening back to the framers of the constitution and the constitution itself when it was first written. You know, there were only 3 million people in 1776, there was rudimentary science in application, most people were illiterate, the germ theory did not exist, education was severyly limited, monolithic western european culture, they were still burning witches, women couldn't vote, the economy was primarily aggrerian, slavery was everywhere practiced, poor to nonexistant communications, and the country was in the throws of trying to thow off colonial mercantilism. Conservatives believe that environment, limited knowledge, and paradigm that existed at that time was capable of producing a constitution without much alteration and certainly no need for reinterpretation or judicious reapplication bringing it up to dealing with the complexities and reality of today's life in a pluralistic, technologially advanced America and in the world. I don't understand it completely, but there seems to be some connection in the right wing mind between a government limited to a military and a police force, and desire see themselves as 1776 revolutionaries. Very primitive, simplistic, dangerous, out of touch, destructive and unworkable.
Last edited:
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Right, right....Arrogant, condescending, know-it-all dickweeds like you are soooooooo brilliant and urbane, while the men who set the nation's course are just a bunch of provincial bumpkins.
I knew I smelled an elitist pus bucket from the very first disingenuous text wall.
I knew I smelled an elitist pus bucket from the very first disingenuous text wall.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Bill Belichick 'sidelines' Jordon Hudson after PR disaster in desperate move to salvage reputation- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 2
-
-
Former State Department analyst pleads guilty to embezzling more than $650K between 2022-2024
- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 1
-
Not Even a Peep! Tim Scott Stays Silent as Trump Tramples His Treasured Minority Business Legacy- Started by Superbadbrutha
- Replies: 2
