deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 11:33:42 GMT -5
Hey man, it's all about that SHARED sacrifice that you and others love to mouth yet it's ONLY on the producers that you extract the pain. If we are all in this together as AMERICANS then ALL AMERICANS should be doing their all! Yes, clearly I am being over the top but the point I make is how foolish the idea that some should pay more is just stupid because we can all pay more, even if it's not in dollars. We can all make sacrifices and make this nation stronger. But, instead, people like you just want to steal more and more from the producers while not addressing all that weakens us. As Lincoln said, "you can not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Similarly, you can not make wealthy the poor by impoverishing the wealthy. Right now we have trillions in unreperated wealth because businesses do not want to bring that money into the nation and be double taxed. Instead, they invest it in other nations. Imagine if we let them bring it in to invest HERE, especially if we stopped nonense like the Boeing incident in South Carolina where the federal government thinks it can tell a business where it can build its factories. That would bring in far, far more revenues , create far, far more jobs, and be far, far better for our economy that what you and others propose by increasing taxes! Simple, really. So simple even a liberal understand it. Business does and that is why they are fleeing and taking jobs and wealth with them! "Yes, clearly I am being over the top" Phew, glad to hear the admission, I can live with a occasional over the top...it's when the over the top folks are seriouse , I have a problem. "If we are all in this together as AMERICANS then ALL AMERICANS should be doing their all!" I agree, and thus said, expect we have to increase revenues and in the short term, a few years at least, increased employment, thus more taxes, increase in business fortunes, more received in taxes, not going to happen or be big enough , any increases, and not sure on capital gains from the markets either, so expect increase in taxes , have to increase income, revenue as well as CUT spending.. "But, instead, people like you just want to steal more and more from the producers while not addressing all that weakens us." not true , scroll up , read my post..all have to chip in.. " Similarly, you can not make wealthy the poor by impoverishing the wealthy." methink you are doing a "over the top " again, very good. If seriouse, please , give me a break already A income of a million per, increase tax to what it was, impoverish the poor darlings...?? Poor babies..I will take that chance, and I thought we were having a real dialogue here..revenues have to go up..do you really feel having all these wars with no way to pay for them is good financial responsibility..not saying it's all the problem but a biggie contributor..you betcha, estimated real true costs when ALL costs figured in, just under $4 Trillion, interest on, aid, replacement, carrying for the troops , for LIFE, and on and on .. I am not going to lose sleep over the more well off having to pay a bit more, also the rest of us too..whether by loop holes closed or just increase in normal taxes, needed ..as well as cuts. Regarding Boeing..I wonder if the federal doesn't sunsidize Boeing on some of their endeavors..especially the military front, tax breaks, loop holes, really don't know but wouldn't be surprised there are special incentives given to a company like that..just a thought, thought I would throw it in.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Aug 6, 2011 11:42:28 GMT -5
Of course the wealthy can't cover the deficit, no one in their right mind says they could, but it is also the idea of , allowing those who really can afford it to pay a bit more. I have to disagree. I believe there are millions and millions of people in this country that have heard Obama's rant about the rich not paying their "fair share" over and over and over again, that many people actually believe that taxing the "rich" is THE solution. Is it "fair" that almost 50% of the population in this country pay ABSOLUTELY NO income taxes? I am against raising taxes on the "rich" a single cent until EVERYONE who receives a paycheck pays SOMETHING. What Obama fails to tell the masses is that the "rich" already pay the majority of the taxes that are collected. And yes, you can tax them more, but they will simply find the legal loopholes that will allow them to pay less. One of Obama's favorite examples are those greedy, corporate jet owners. That loophole was part of Obama's STIMULUS package to stimulate the plane-building industry. But he tends to leave that little fact out when he is complaining about all those evil, greedy, corporate jet owners. The problem is compounded by the fact that no matter HOW MUCH revenue the government collects, they always spend MORE and Obama the biggest "spender" in US history, has no intentions whatsoever of cutting back anywhere unless he is FORCED to do so. DH and I are what you would call upper middle class. We would be willing to pay higher income taxes, but only if EVERYONE has to pay SOMETHING and the increased revenue raised went to pay off debt. The problem is that that it never does.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 11:42:38 GMT -5
The below quote - post is an example of tea partiery lacking any real thought. The taxes collected for these programs can support these programs but, have been usurped by our politicians throughout the decades for other reasons. These programs are paid for like I would pay on lay-away - now you say it is an entitlement program (with a negative conotation) - I am en-titled to what I paid for. Just as I am entitled to take possesion, upon paying off, that which I purchased in a lay-away tranaction - I take title to that which I purchased - its a simple contract.
"SS and Medicare have their own special taxes. If these taxes can not support them, then cuts need to be made whether that be increases in age or smaller checks. WHY did you trust a government to care for you in the first place? It is NOT the responsibility of the rich to take care of you. Are you a simpleton, unable to make plans?"
"We, the People, are the rightful masters of both the Congress and the Courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who have perverted it." - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 11:49:14 GMT -5
“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” -James Madison
“No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.” -Alexis de Tocqueville
In the United States, people are wont to talk feverishly and vindictively about the “non-taxpayer”, for it is here that our brother from Mexico, our cousin from over the Canadian Border, our friends from India and the Middle East come to escape the rigors of their respective locations They proceed to use our highways and our libraries, our water systems and our police protection. If they have children old enough and stay long enough, they use our public schools etc., whereupon there is a great cry about non-taxpayers taking advantage of our benefits of government. Because these visitors and temporary residents don’t own property and are not listed with the tax man, the general supposition is that they pay no taxes. A itemized account of the money spent by these “guests” over a period of time would yield some surprises. Naturally, the itemization includes practically everything permanent residents would buy, food, clothing, housing, luxuries and the usual necessities. A little thought will show clearly that while the guest owned no property here, the hotel proprietor, the restaurateur, the merchant, the grocer, the druggist, everyone in fact, from whom he made purchases did own property, and that property was subject to taxation. The tax on the buildings and merchandize was simply added to the other overhead expenses in the bill of the proprietor and merchant. The property owner acted as a collector and ultimate consumer, whether a native son or a wandering guest, paid the tax. The guest who owned no property himself in the United States paid a tax whenever he slept with a roof over his head, paid taxes every time he bought a cigar or steak. A man could no more pass through the United States and purchase a meal or a night’s lodging without paying taxes than he could buy a gallon of gasoline for his car without paying the gasoline tax. The “non-taxpayer”? He belongs to the class of griffins and unicorns and other fabulous animals. There is no such creature.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 6, 2011 11:50:28 GMT -5
SS is just a tax like any other tax, what you pay in is not tied directly to you , you don't have an account holding your money and the federal government is in no way contractually bound to pay you your ss benefits. The federal government never should have gotten in to this business in the first place.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Aug 6, 2011 12:01:04 GMT -5
“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” -James Madison “No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.” -Alexis de Tocqueville Because these visitors and temporary residents don’t own property and are not listed with the tax man, the general supposition is that they pay no taxes. Yes, they pay "taxes" directly or indirectly, but many of them still pay no INCOME TAXES, yet receive all the benefits that those taxes provide.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 6, 2011 12:02:19 GMT -5
We first and foremost have a spending problem, but we do have a revenue problem, not because of too few or too low taxes or to many loop holes, but because we have a shrinking tax base. People point to federal taxes being only (only haha) 14% of GDP when it has historically been around 18% so we should be able to raise taxes enough to suck out another 4%. This is taking a very simple static look at the economy and misses the effects that high unemployment and borrowed stimulus being injected into the economy. The real way to grow revenue is grow the economy, and there seems to be some pretty simple ways to do this, we need to reduce regulations, greatly simplify the tax code (not just arbitrarily remove loops holes from those who we seem to hate) and allow unfettered domestic energy growth, this would provide numerous new jobs by directly creating jobs in energy, plus associated jobs and reduce the cost of doing business across the board. If we make the USA a more friendly environment for investors more money would flow in. We have actually been somewhat lucky because a lot of the world is still worse than we have been.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 12:05:43 GMT -5
I must be misreading something when I get an accounting of my SS retirement benefits I will be expecting when I retire. I disagree strongly that the "Government should never have gotten in to this business in the first place" Number 1) it is not a business...it's a public good. 2) it's not out to make a profit 3) If your suggesting it become privatized then...IMO you have not thought it out in any substantive way 3) I am not sure IMO that you know the circumstances under which SS came about.
Privatization of public goods has 99% of the time resulted in increased cost and the moral hazard has also increased. IMO of course
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 6, 2011 12:09:07 GMT -5
Yes, they pay "taxes" directly or indirectly, but many of them still pay no INCOME TAXES, yet receive all the benefits that those taxes provide. This is why I am for the replacement of income tax with a retail sales tax. Mostly I am against progressive income tax , people talk about fair,unfair, but it seems like progressive income tax is incredibly unfair, I can understand paying more when you make more, but pay a higher percentage when you make more seems very unfair. Why penalize someone for making more money. I actually think many people that are for taxing the rich don't understand progressive tax rates and just assume that the rich are actually paying lower rates because they have so many loop holes.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 6, 2011 12:10:59 GMT -5
I must be misreading something when I get an accounting of my SS retirement benefits I will be expecting when I retire. I disagree strongly that the "Government should never have gotten in to this business in the first place" Number 1) it is not a business...it's a public good. 2) it's not out to make a profit 3) If your suggesting it become privatized then...IMO you have not thought it out in any substantive way 3) I am not sure IMO that you know the circumstances under which SS came about. Privatization of public goods has 99% of the time resulted in increased cost and the moral hazard has also increased. IMO of course If you are equating that accounting to a contract then yes you are misreading it.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 12:12:19 GMT -5
Let the right person, or the right number of persons, suggest a plausible, but utterly impossible idea, and shortly millions of people will acclaim its truth. At the present moment there is a popular obsession that everybody is dishonest, particularly those holding public office. To be an office holder, runs the popular belief, is to be a tax-eater, a tax-eater is a politician, and a politician is a grafter. Unfortunately some men are dishonest, and some of them get into office, where they betray the interest of the public. They should be brought to light as fast as possible, and summarily punished. But the fact of individual dishonesty should not be made an excuse for impeaching the human race. The greatest enemy of good government is not knavery, but ignorance. Where the knave filches from us one dollar, the fool costs us a thousand. No law should be ignored by the executive, nor misinterpreted or modified by the judiciary; it should be either enforced or repealed. But to honestly enforce a law based upon a false principle will result not in good but harm. Honesty and efficiency in public office are desirable in and of themselves; but until directed by intelligence and understanding they can accomplish little. Party chiefs promise, if elected by the people, to “drive the rascals out”. Then what? A dishonest pilot at the wheel is safer for the ship than an honest man who knows not the channel. The “letting down”, or “slowing up,” of business, the closing of banks. The growing unemployment, the high cost of living are not due to official grafting, scandalous though it has been, but to our unsound revenue system. The first man who asked Congress for a special privilege, that is, the first man who confessed to our law making body that he could not conduct his affairs unless a special law was passed to protect him from the competition of another man who could operate without such protection, set in motion an evil train of effects. Every man’s product is a raw material to the man who buys it. If government interferes with private business to the extent of enabling one man to charge more than the market rate for his product, it to that extent handicaps the man who buys that product and sooner or later the victim seeks similar relief from government. The second special privilege lays a burden upon other consumers, who in turn seek relief. When the last man who commands sufficient political influence to secure a privilege has been favored, the first privilege-seeker finds that his raw materials have been raised in price, and in order that he may conduct his business at a profit he must have a greater privilege. When the second round of privileges has been distributed, the first man applies for a third; and so on without end. If that were all of the story, if privileges could be distributed forever, it might be endured, except for two things. First, there are large numbers of people to whom these privileges are useless. Second, our higher scale of prices handicaps us in outside markets. The result of this special privilege policy was inevitable from the beginning. Only the country’s exceptional resources, and the remarkable era of science and invention through which we are passing have enabled us to carry the burden this long. The answer to our dilemma is not to be found in granting more special privileges, but in repealing as rapidly as may be those already in force. Every privilege taken from one man cheapens the raw materials of others. When all special laws have been repealed, all citizens will stand on a footing of equality, each engaged in the business for which he is best fitted.
As Simon Patten, the first economics professor at the nation’s first business school (the Wharton School) explained, public infrastructure investment is a “fourth factor of production.” It takes its return not in the form of profits, but in the degree to which it lowers the economy’s cost of doing business and living. Public investment does not need to generate profits or pay high salaries, bonuses and stock options, or operate via offshore banking centers.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Aug 6, 2011 12:27:30 GMT -5
The below quote - post is an example of tea partiery lacking any real thought. The taxes collected for these programs can support these programs but, have been usurped by our politicians throughout the decades for other reasons. These programs are paid for like I would pay on lay-away - now you say it is an entitlement program (with a negative conotation) - I am en-titled to what I paid for. Just as I am entitled to take possesion, upon paying off, that which I purchased in a lay-away tranaction - I take title to that which I purchased - its a simple contract. "SS and Medicare have their own special taxes. If these taxes can not support them, then cuts need to be made whether that be increases in age or smaller checks. WHY did you trust a government to care for you in the first place? It is NOT the responsibility of the rich to take care of you. Are you a simpleton, unable to make plans?" "We, the People, are the rightful masters of both the Congress and the Courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who have perverted it." - Abraham Lincoln You're both right and you're both wrong. I can't blame people who have "planned" on Social Security and Medicare. The government, until just recently, told them that they could. I can't tell you how many times over the last 31 years we were PREACHED TO about the three legged stool of retirement: pension, social security/medicare, and personal savings. On the other hand, if cuts are NOT made, the programs won't be there for ANYONE. How those cuts are made and how soon they are implemented will impact everyone. Those who are already receiving benefits and rely on them today will be impacted less; those of us who have been paying into them our entire lives, but are not yet receiving benefits will be impacted more. The US government and everyone elected has known for DECADES that this day would come. All anyone had to do was to look at the demographics of the baby boom generation to know that all the payouts were unsustainable. DH and I will be 55 next year and we stopped including SS in our retirement planning almost TWENTY FIVE years ago!! Unfortunately, we could not see the massive increases in the cost of health care at that time and DID count on having Medicare. Now that is up in the air and as a result DH will probably not be taking early retirement at age 55 as we had planned since he was 24 years old. We HAVE TO have some idea of what the cost of our medical care will be before he can retire and he will not do so until the government gives us some idea of what to expect. And how many other "workers" are there today that might be considering retirement (and thus perhaps indirectly providing a job for someone else through attrition) that is not "pulling the trigger" because of the uncertainty of government fiscal policy? I am SURE that we are not the only ones.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 6, 2011 12:27:31 GMT -5
Yes, we need to vastly reign in the power of the federal government to get it away from handing out so many privileges, let the people use there capital, be it money or time, to be productive and keep more of what they make, but also suffer if they fail.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 13:52:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 12:29:16 GMT -5
Yeah, it's a government who is de-valuing the dollar in order to avoid getting its house in order.
Just to point out....The dollar being devalued also makes our goods cheaper which should increase exports to other countries. I'm not saying that your wrong, both could be aims of the government.
Something that's argued here (& I just saw it catching up) is do 40% of the people not pay federal taxes? Many people point out that they do pay taxes, just not federal taxes as in income tax. Well I would point out that yes they do pay other taxes, but they also get back more federal taxes than they pay in so in the end they probably make more "free" money than they pay in taxes for the year. Probably they get back more than all the government type fee's for the whole year (like car registration, etc). Also I think that number isn't 40% but 48% (it's gone up).
Sorry but that tax refund need to go away. As a country we can't afford it. As a tax payer, we can't afford it because there aren't enough of us.
As a side comment: I just wanted to point out that this is the first discussion on a thread that I think I have ever seen where any democrats admitted that something needed to be cut. Before it was always abstract answers that were thrown out (like taxing the rich, bush tax cuts, tax business more, etc...). What a huge step forward. I just wish congress could move this far forward.
|
|
Trongersoll
Junior Member
former Software Engineer
Joined: Jul 1, 2011 11:51:53 GMT -5
Posts: 178
|
Post by Trongersoll on Aug 6, 2011 12:31:16 GMT -5
This thread has gotten out of hand, everybody BREATHE! There are so many inane things being said here that it is ridiculous. Why trust the Gov. and SS to provide for you? um... because they promised and had a AAA rating? It is easy to say "don't trust the Gov. all politicians are crooks", but statements like that are beliefs, not facts. If we can't trust the Gov. to fulfill it's promises, then the Corporations will decide to stop fulfilling theirs. Good by pension funds. "you were stupid enough to trust big business?". If you can't trust promises made, you might as well Swan Dive off the Golden Gate Bridge because in reality, you have nothing, your stocks and bonds are worthless. Gold? "oh, did we tell you that we bought gold with your money, um, well we lied". The money in your mattress is worthless. if the gold isn't in your hand, you don't have it, you just have a promise.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 12:32:11 GMT -5
Isn't the revenue issue due to the number of unemployed and the slow economy?? So wiould raising taxes help or hurt??
We have 17 million out of work in this country...so would raising taxes add more to this number??
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 12:33:02 GMT -5
"Yes, they pay "taxes" directly or indirectly, but many of them still pay no INCOME TAXES, yet receive all the benefits that those taxes provide. " The reason they pay no income taxes is because businesses are not withholding them - The businesses are taking advatage of illegal acts of not withholden taxes to undercut their competitors - Don't you think this should be addresses under our current laws - don't you think the USA should go after the true criminal acts.
The government could have used its equity ownership and control of the banks to provide credit and credit card services as the “public option.” Credit is a form of infrastructure, and such public investment is what enabled the United States to undersell foreign economies in the 19th and 20th centuries despite its high wage levels and social spending programs.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 6, 2011 12:33:36 GMT -5
This thread has gotten out of hand, everybody BREATHE! There are so many inane things being said here that it is ridiculous. Why trust the Gov. and SS to provide for you? um... because they promised and had a AAA rating? It is easy to say "don't trust the Gov. all politicians are crooks", but statements like that are beliefs, not facts. If we can't trust the Gov. to fulfill it's promises, then the Corporations will decide to stop fulfilling theirs. Good by pension funds. "you were stupid enough to trust big business?". If you can't trust promises made, you might as well Swan Dive off the Golden Gate Bridge because in reality, you have nothing, your stocks and bonds are worthless. Gold? "oh, did we tell you that we bought gold with your money, um, well we lied". The money in your mattress is worthless. if the gold isn't in your hand, you don't have it, you just have a promise. The government shouldn't be making promises that go beyond its mandate, its mandate being defined by the Constitution.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Aug 6, 2011 12:40:27 GMT -5
IRS: Not Enough Rich to Cover That is probably very true. However if you believe John Chambers who said that the S&P financial analysts reviewed the debt reduction plans to cut @$2 Trillion from our debt that @$4 Trillion is really needed for the next decade which has to include a mix of both tax revenue and spending cuts....so now we have to see how the Obama administration will react to this statement by Mr Chambers, I guess?? He has to get the repubs to go along with tax revenue increases which is going to be a tough road to hoe and could just lead to another debt downgrade by the end of this year. I wonder how the new healthcare bill will fit into all this?
|
|
Trongersoll
Junior Member
former Software Engineer
Joined: Jul 1, 2011 11:51:53 GMT -5
Posts: 178
|
Post by Trongersoll on Aug 6, 2011 12:44:02 GMT -5
This thread has gotten out of hand, everybody BREATHE! There are so many inane things being said here that it is ridiculous. Why trust the Gov. and SS to provide for you? um... because they promised and had a AAA rating? It is easy to say "don't trust the Gov. all politicians are crooks", but statements like that are beliefs, not facts. If we can't trust the Gov. to fulfill it's promises, then the Corporations will decide to stop fulfilling theirs. Good by pension funds. "you were stupid enough to trust big business?". If you can't trust promises made, you might as well Swan Dive off the Golden Gate Bridge because in reality, you have nothing, your stocks and bonds are worthless. Gold? "oh, did we tell you that we bought gold with your money, um, well we lied". The money in your mattress is worthless. if the gold isn't in your hand, you don't have it, you just have a promise. The government shouldn't be making promises that go beyond its mandate, its mandate being defined by the Constitution. coulda, shoulda, woulda. Irregardless of whether they should have or not, they did. They did this long before many of us were born. This is the Gov. we inherited and we now we have to live with it. If you don't agree with the promises made, then stop making them for the future, but don't go back on your word for the promises already made.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 13:52:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 12:44:09 GMT -5
Another side comment: It's kind of funny that I'm so dedicated to stopping the extra taxes on the rich & cutting spending. You see at our income level, none of it affects us. If what is considered poor keeps going up within a year or two we would be getting extra money back from the government (which we wouldn't take). I'll soon be eligible for social security, we don't need it. I can soon draw from our retirement accounts, we don't need them. Our house will soon be paid off, we pay extra on it. Etc. Sounds like I'm bragging doesn't it. Well the truth is that we didn't do but a couple of things right along the way & other than that we live just like everyone else. We don't buy expensive depreciating assets (like cars. Never owned an SUV). We don't buy cars often (5 in 22 years & 2 of them we had to sell because they weren't U.S. specks). We don't pay a lot in interest (I believe that we just don't make enough to pay between 10 & 20 percent of our income in interest). Yet if I can manage to live another 10 years the odds are that our estate will be worth more than 1 million dollars when I die. If only "some" of the people in our government would not look at money as Monopoly money & actually make "SMART" decisions.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 12:45:09 GMT -5
Tax has the power to destroy - it is its only power. Tax the crap out of things that brought our country to an AA+ rating - Monopolistic activity, Predetory business activities, Special Privalege, Gambling, Derivatives, Hedge Fund activities outside of normal economic activity, Speculation and reduce taxes on the things that create wealth - labor and capital consuming activities which create wealth... Money is a commodity, invented to help people by facilitating transactions. It is not wealth in itself. Wealth is natural resources, water, food, land, education, skill, spirit, ingenuity, art, labor.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Aug 6, 2011 12:48:54 GMT -5
Yes, we need to vastly reign in the power of the federal government to get it away from handing out so many privileges, let the people use there capital, be it money or time, to be productive and keep more of what they make, but also suffer if they fail. But it will never happen because as humans we are compassionate beings. Washington claims to want to improve peoples' lives, whether it be in "welfare" programs or education programs or tax incentives/disincentives, etc. The reality is that just about everything except defense should be left to the states and municipalities. The poor of a community should be taken care of by each individual community who can SEE what the needs are and address them. Education is a responsibility of the states and the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars spent on and by the Department of Education have not improved the quality of education in this country one iota. As a matter of fact, it has only gotten worse!! We all need to wake up. The federal government NEVER spends money or provides services efficiently. The less we expect them to do, the better.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 12:53:18 GMT -5
The comment below is as true today as when it was first made
As Simon Patten, the first economics professor at the nation’s first business school (the Wharton School) explained, public infrastructure investment is a “fourth factor of production.” It takes its return not in the form of profits, but in the degree to which it lowers the economy’s cost of doing business and living. Public investment does not need to generate profits or pay high salaries, bonuses and stock options, or operate via offshore banking centers.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 12:58:38 GMT -5
Tax has the power to destroy - it is its only power. Tax the crap out of things that brought our country to an AA+ rating - Monopolistic activity, Predetory business activities, Special Privalege, Gambling, Derivatives, Hedge Fund activities outside of normal economic activity, Speculation and reduce taxes on the things that create wealth - labor and capital consuming activities which create wealth... Money is a commodity, invented to help people by facilitating transactions. It is not wealth in itself. Wealth is natural resources, water, food, land, education, skill, spirit, ingenuity, art, labor. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. see, i pretty much agree with this. there is a productive employment of capital that results in economic growth and prosperity, and there is a parasitic type of capital formation that really produces nothing other than concentration of wealth. but i am sure that there are many here that will question the role of government in making sure (or, at a minimum ENCOURAGING the idea) that the unproductively employed capital makes it's way back into the marketplace.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 13:02:28 GMT -5
"Education is a responsibility of the states and the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars spent on and by the Department of Education have not improved the quality of education in this country one iota. As a matter of fact, it has only gotten worse!! "
True - and this indicates problems that are more fundamental than the dollars being spent - for most of the time the USA had the best education system on the planet - it appears that when vested interests, politics and privitization get mixed in the quality goes down. I don't know about you but the every child left behind program didn't help and, in my view, that program was an attempt to back-door privitization efforts. Why would private companies be so interested in education - because they know when they get it privatized they will be able to suck it dry - it would be a fantastic cash cow - and being so important to all Americans - they know they would have the privalege of a quasi monopolistic enterprise. - Ultimatley, in my opinion and my 99.9999% certainy - it will cost us all much more.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 13:07:21 GMT -5
"Education is a responsibility of the states and the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars spent on and by the Department of Education have not improved the quality of education in this country one iota. As a matter of fact, it has only gotten worse!! " True - and this indicates problems that are more fundamental than the dollars being spent - for most of the time the USA had the best education system on the planet - it appears that when vested interests, politics and privitization get mixed in the quality goes down. I don't know about you but the every child left behind program didn't help and, in my view, that program was an attempt to back-door privitization efforts. Why would private companies be so interested in education - because they know when they get it privatized they will be able to suck it dry - it would be a fantastic cash cow - and being so important to all Americans - they know they would have the privalege of a quasi monopolistic enterprise. - Ultimatley, in my opinion and my 99.9999% certainy - it will cost us all much more. instinctively, i know that putting public education in a bathtub and drowning it is a bad bad move. we need more engineers, not lawnmower mechanics. we need more innovators, not burger flippers. we are not going to get them without a basic good education. i am wealthy, with one child, and i can BARELY afford to send him to private school. it is pretty clear that most people can't manage to do that. there are simply not enough rich kids to give us the talent we need to thrive as a nation. we should really get back to basics at the federal and state level, and look WORLDWIDE at what works, and stop fucking around with NCLB and other horseshit that is taking us 180 degrees in the wrong direction-and turning our kids into test robots, and our teachers into test administrators.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 13:07:33 GMT -5
"that the unproductively employed capital makes it's way back into the marketplace." Sure, they will say that that capital will make it back into the market but, today, that has not happened - at least not into the US economy nor has it made itself back into the real economy "productive employment of capital that results in economic growth and prosperity" but it has certainly made it into the "parasitic type of capital formation that really produces nothing other than concentration of wealth"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 13:09:09 GMT -5
"that the unproductively employed capital makes it's way back into the marketplace." Sure, they will say that that capital will make it back into the market but, today, that has not happened - at least not into the US economy nor has it made itself back into the real economy "productive employment of capital that results in economic growth and prosperity" but it has certainly made it into the "parasitic type of capital formation that really produces nothing other than concentration of wealth" yes. trickle down seems plausible, but it actually doesn't work that way. trickle down has resulted in HIGHER wealth disparity.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 13:20:10 GMT -5
Ya maan
|
|