What the Libertarians get wrong about the constitution

225 posts / 0 new

The Libertarians are wrong to take the constitution literally. It should be interpreted from basic principles that are applicable to our times.

Technically, perhaps every new circumstance, every year, we should amend it. But that is impossible, plus open to dangers. We don't want a new amendment every time are society gets a little more dangerous, more complex, more dependent on each other for our survival.

The Libertarians - unlike the rest of us - take the constitution literally because they have didactic minds - they can only think in black and white. So, you either have Libertopia - or - STALINISM! It is a psychological disease.

It is by ignoring the literal interpretation of the constitution that we became an advanced, industrial economy. Like everyone else.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

The problem with you analysis is that libtopia and stalinism are the same thing. Libertarians want liberty, liberty can only be achieved through small government that does not erode your freedoms. Big government has no other option but to erode your liberties in order to provide free stuff to people who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

The problem with ... ...Libertarians ... ... does... ...erode your freedoms. Big government has no other option but to... ...provide free stuff to people who... ...deserve it.

Absolutely right again, Linda!

We have no other option but to tax the wealthy profiteer's money back into the folds of true democracy.

Glad to have you on board!

Jobs are open in the swabbing department, lower level, turn left and keep going down.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote workingman:

The problem with you analysis is that libtopia and stalinism are the same thing. Libertarians want liberty, liberty can only be achieved through small government that does not erode your freedoms. Big government has no other option but to erode your liberties in order to provide free stuff to people who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

So you are saying Libtopia - perhaps what we have now - and Stalinism are the same thing?

The fact that you cannot see the difference proves my point. You really think you are living under Stalinism now?

This is why I wrote what I did - that everyone knows you can't take the Constitution litterally. No country could function like that.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:

The problem with you analysis is that libtopia and stalinism are the same thing. Libertarians want liberty, liberty can only be achieved through small government that does not erode your freedoms. Big government has no other option but to erode your liberties in order to provide free stuff to people who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

So you are saying Libtopia - perhaps what we have now - and Stalinism are the same thing?

The fact that you cannot see the difference proves my point. You really think you are living under Stalinism now?

This is why I wrote what I did - that everyone knows you can't take the Constitution litterally. No country could function like that.

Liberal progressive policies are rooted in communism. so yes libtopia and stalinism are the same.

The country ran just fine under the consitution until the early 1900 when the progressives started taking our liberties under the guise of making the country better.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

Liberal progressive policies are rooted in communism. so yes libtopia and stalinism are the same.

Is there an ass kissing contest going on? If so, please kiss my progressive ass.

I win!!!

Too late to respond, I already won.

See, you can't get a word in edgewise, can you?

Try again.

BAM!!!

I win again!

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote workingman:... yes libtopia and stalinism are the same.

I just felt like quoting this jewel as well.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:

The Libertarians are wrong to take the constitution literally. It should be interpreted from basic principles that are applicable to our times.

Technically, perhaps every new circumstance, every year, we should amend it. But that is impossible, plus open to dangers.

So you are conceding that because it's is "impossible", or more likely inconvenient or too slow, we shouldn't amend the Constitution. We should just break the law (the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land) and change the Constitution by statute. Don't you think that is a little more dangerous than the amendment process? Also, Amendments can be added without the dangerous spectre of a Constitutional Convention.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote anonymous green:
Quote workingman:

The problem with ... ...Libertarians ... ... does... ...erode your freedoms. Big government has no other option but to... ...provide free stuff to people who... ...deserve it.

Absolutely right again, Linda!

We have no other option but to tax the wealthy profiteer's money back into the folds of true democracy.

Glad to have you on board!

Jobs are open in the swabbing department, lower level, turn left and keep going down.

this is nice the only response you have other than insults is to take what I wrote out of context.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote anonymous green:
Quote workingman:

Liberal progressive policies are rooted in communism. so yes libtopia and stalinism are the same.

Is there an ass kissing contest going on? If so, please kiss my progressive ass.

I win!!!

Too late to respond, I already won.

See, you can't get a word in edgewise, can you?

Try again.

BAM!!!

I win again!

I will not debate fools they lower you down to their level and than beat you with experience. Insults and quoted out of context is not a win unless you are a fool.

Have a nice day

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:

The problem with you analysis is that libtopia and stalinism are the same thing. Libertarians want liberty, liberty can only be achieved through small government that does not erode your freedoms. Big government has no other option but to erode your liberties in order to provide free stuff to people who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

So you are saying Libtopia - perhaps what we have now - and Stalinism are the same thing?

The fact that you cannot see the difference proves my point. You really think you are living under Stalinism now?

This is why I wrote what I did - that everyone knows you can't take the Constitution litterally. No country could function like that.

Liberal progressive policies are rooted in communism. so yes libtopia and stalinism are the same. The country ran just fine under the consitution until the early 1900 when the progressives started taking our liberties under the guise of making the country better.

In a civilized society it's impossible for everyone to have complete liberty. Eventually your freedoms trample all over my freedoms and vice versa. In order to have order some liberties must be curtailed. Your freedom to make money with a factory can trample my freedom to breathe clean air. My freedom to make money with a stockyard on my own land upstream from you can trample your freedom to drink clean water. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:

The problem with you analysis is that libtopia and stalinism are the same thing. Libertarians want liberty, liberty can only be achieved through small government that does not erode your freedoms. Big government has no other option but to erode your liberties in order to provide free stuff to people who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

So you are saying Libtopia - perhaps what we have now - and Stalinism are the same thing?

The fact that you cannot see the difference proves my point. You really think you are living under Stalinism now?

This is why I wrote what I did - that everyone knows you can't take the Constitution litterally. No country could function like that.

Liberal progressive policies are rooted in communism. so yes libtopia and stalinism are the same. The country ran just fine under the consitution until the early 1900 when the progressives started taking our liberties under the guise of making the country better.

In a civilized society it's impossible for everyone to have complete liberty. Eventually your freedoms trample all over my freedoms and vice versa. In order to have order some liberties must be curtailed. Your freedom to make money with a factory can trample my freedom to breathe clean air. My freedom to make money with a stockyard on my own land upstream from you can trample your freedom to drink clean water. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

I understand that the federal and state governments have some jobs to do, however they have past that mark and kept going steadily moving towards communism since 1900 or so. Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote Dr. Econ:

The Libertarians are wrong to take the constitution literally. It should be interpreted from basic principles that are applicable to our times.

Technically, perhaps every new circumstance, every year, we should amend it. But that is impossible, plus open to dangers.

So you are conceding that because it's is "impossible", or more likely inconvenient or too slow, we shouldn't amend the Constitution. We should just break the law (the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land) and change the Constitution by statute. Don't you think that is a little more dangerous than the amendment process? Also, Amendments can be added without the dangerous spectre of a Constitutional Convention.

What has been more dangerous? The supreme court preventing campaign finance reform? The supreme court preventing reasonable gun control laws? We need to keep the spirit of the constitution, obviously. But when some new thing comes along - say television political advirtising or automatic weapons the federal government should be able to act. without having to amend the constitution. If we get the idea we can routinely amend the constitution, then you might as well not have one.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff.

This can and will lead to communism.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

On a side note the soviet union collapsed because the state got so big that it chocked off the tax paying producers. Once the producers could no longer keep up with the demand plased on it the country fell apart.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

I think it is quite clear that middle of the road policies lead to statism. The US is a perfect example. We have been increasing government since the beginning of the country. There have been some reductions after wars but the government is always bigger post-war than pre-war. We're perilously close, if not already past, the tipping point in 2012.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Government spending on free stuff leads to, to much government power. The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that.

We are getting to the point that the dems who promise the most free stuff will win by a landslide. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes. Couple that with 1/3 on government handouts and you are rapidly approaching total government control.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

49 percent of working americans have little to no money. Is that because of the government or because of unregulated capitalism? The more we deregulate capitalism the more the "handouts" are going to increase and according to your analysis that means total government control. In essence you are saying that less government control (deregulation) leads to more government control. ??????

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:

The problem with you analysis is that libtopia and stalinism are the same thing. Libertarians want liberty, liberty can only be achieved through small government that does not erode your freedoms. Big government has no other option but to erode your liberties in order to provide free stuff to people who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

So you are saying Libtopia - perhaps what we have now - and Stalinism are the same thing?

The fact that you cannot see the difference proves my point. You really think you are living under Stalinism now?

This is why I wrote what I did - that everyone knows you can't take the Constitution litterally. No country could function like that.

Liberal progressive policies are rooted in communism. so yes libtopia and stalinism are the same. The country ran just fine under the consitution until the early 1900 when the progressives started taking our liberties under the guise of making the country better.

In a civilized society it's impossible for everyone to have complete liberty. Eventually your freedoms trample all over my freedoms and vice versa. In order to have order some liberties must be curtailed. Your freedom to make money with a factory can trample my freedom to breathe clean air. My freedom to make money with a stockyard on my own land upstream from you can trample your freedom to drink clean water. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

I understand that the federal and state governments have some jobs to do, however they have past that mark and kept going steadily moving towards communism since 1900 or so. Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Wow you couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps you missed the recent thread on market socialism. You need to educate yourself.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Government spending on free stuff leads to, to much government power. The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that. We are getting to the point that the dems who promise the most free stuff will win by a landslide. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes. Couple that with 1/3 on government handouts and you are rapidly approaching total government control.

workingman why is it that I can;t get through one of your posts without spotting a lie. ZERO percent of Americans pay no taxes (that is unless they are completely of the grid). The bottom 49% pay state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes (via rent if they don't own), they pay gas taxes when they go to the pump or buy a bus ticket, What's more is that some of the taxes here are REGRESSIVE meaning, the poor pay a HIGHER rate of sales tax in comparison to their salary than the rich. It's like you have no effing clue what an effective tax rate is or that there are 934827543908173298174390 taxes beyond Federal Income taxes. Wake the hell up or go home.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote workingman:

The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that.

Where did you get this zany idea? Where in the Constitution does it say this?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:49 percent of working americans have little to no money. Is that because of the government or because of unregulated capitalism? The more we deregulate capitalism the more the "handouts" are going to increase and according to your analysis that means total government control. In essence you are saying that less government control (deregulation) leads to more government control. ??????

No, that's a misunderstanding. If we cut taxes to the upper class then they will have more money to expand their businesses and create more higher-wage jobs, therefore eliminating the need for anyone to have government help. It's really simple.

So what you're thinking of as problems caused by deregulation are in fact problems caused by too much regulation. Just vote for Romney and everything will be okay.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

None of it is free stuff. I would wager that about 80% of what you call "free stuff" is actually redistribution of wealth the poor have created themselves back to them after their employers have gouged their wages for profit. A capitalist produces NO WEALTH OR PRODUCTIVITY WHATSOEVER. The ONLY thing a Capitalist does is "own" means of production and siphon off profit from OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK. You need to seriously reeducate yourself. You have bought into the corporatist ideology and drank the coolaid. It's great for them. It makes you passively committed to supporting their rape of the common man through the theft of someone's productivity through "property rights."

PROPERTY IS THEFT!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Capitalism is nothing more than slavery redifined. You are a slave to your capitalist master. They only give you what they have to in order to insure your passive complicity in a system that will only favor them. The ONLY solution is democracy - democratizing the economy. That doesn't mean state ownership but it does mean eliminating Capitalism - a totalitarian economic system. If you endorse freedom so much why are you supporting and defending corporate monarchs?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote JTaylor:
Quote Bush_Wacker:49 percent of working americans have little to no money. ....... leads to more government control. ??????

No, that's a misunderstanding. If we cut taxes to the upper class then they will have more money to expand their businesses and create more higher-wage jobs, therefore eliminating the need for anyone to have government help. It's really simple.

So what you're thinking of as problems caused by deregulation are in fact problems caused by too much regulation. Just vote for Romney and everything will be okay.

JTaylor.... are you being serious or are you kidding with the highlighted statement?

Trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK, it's a myth.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote JTaylor:
Quote Bush_Wacker:49 percent of working americans have little to no money. Is that because of the government or because of unregulated capitalism? The more we deregulate capitalism the more the "handouts" are going to increase and according to your analysis that means total government control. In essence you are saying that less government control (deregulation) leads to more government control. ??????

No, that's a misunderstanding. If we cut taxes to the upper class then they will have more money to expand their businesses and create more higher-wage jobs, therefore eliminating the need for anyone to have government help. It's really simple.

So what you're thinking of as problems caused by deregulation are in fact problems caused by too much regulation. Just vote for Romney and everything will be okay.

Really? We have the lowest tax rate (and have had the lowest tax rate since well before 2008) in about 60 some years. Where are all the jobs?

Tax rates for the wealthy have NOTHING to do with job creation because they only spend about 18-20% of what they make. If you give them a tax cut, they pocket it.

If you give a tax cut to a poor person, they spend it immediately - increasing GDP, expanding the economy, increasing aggregate demand, and stimulating job growth. It is really simple and you have it ass backward.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Government spending on free stuff leads to, to much government power. The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that. We are getting to the point that the dems who promise the most free stuff will win by a landslide. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes. Couple that with 1/3 on government handouts and you are rapidly approaching total government control.

workingman why is it that I can;t get through one of your posts without spotting a lie. ZERO percent of Americans pay no taxes (that is unless they are completely of the grid). The bottom 49% pay state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes (via rent if they don't own), they pay gas taxes when they go to the pump or buy a bus ticket, What's more is that some of the taxes here are REGRESSIVE meaning, the poor pay a HIGHER rate of sales tax in comparison to their salary than the rich. It's like you have no effing clue what an effective tax rate is or that there are 934827543908173298174390 taxes beyond Federal Income taxes. Wake the hell up or go home.

I am awake and I am not lieing, the IRS has said that 49 percent of the working americans pay zero federal income tax, some of them get back more money than they pay in including what is paid in, in payrol taxes.

Rich people pay all of the same taxes as poor infact they pay in more. Their houses a bigger and nicer so their property tax is higher. They buy nicer more expensive items so sales.tax is also higher. demonizing the rich is not the answer.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote JTaylor:No, that's a misunderstanding. If we cut taxes to the upper class then they will have more money to expand their businesses and create more higher-wage jobs, therefore eliminating the need for anyone to have government help. It's really simple.

JTaylor.... are you being serious or are you kidding with the highlighted statement?
Trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK, it's a myth.

Of course I was kidding. I thought the painfully stupid "Vote for Romney and everything will be okay" line would give it away.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote workingman:

The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that.

Where did you get this zany idea? Where in the Constitution does it say this?

From the founding fathers who gave the federal government 18 jobs to do and left everything else to the states and people.

Freedom can not be achieved with the federal government dictating how you live your life.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote ah2:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

None of it is free stuff. I would wager that about 80% of what you call "free stuff" is actually redistribution of wealth the poor have created themselves back to them after their employers have gouged their wages for profit. A capitalist produces NO WEALTH OR PRODUCTIVITY WHATSOEVER. The ONLY thing a Capitalist does is "own" means of production and siphon off profit from OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK. You need to seriously reeducate yourself. You have bought into the corporatist ideology and drank the coolaid. It's great for them. It makes you passively committed to supporting their rape of the common man through the theft of someone's productivity through "property rights."

PROPERTY IS THEFT!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Capitalism is nothing more than slavery redifined. You are a slave to your capitalist master. They only give you what they have to in order to insure your passive complicity in a system that will only favor them. The ONLY solution is democracy - democratizing the economy. That doesn't mean state ownership but it does mean eliminating Capitalism - a totalitarian economic system. If you endorse freedom so much why are you supporting and defending corporate monarchs?

I am not a slave to anyone but the federal government who uses it's monopoly on force to confiscate my labor to support people who are unwilling to support themselves. Capitalism gives everyone a chance to improve their lives. There is no other system on earth that allows you to start out dirt poor and end up as rich as you want to be.

re-education is how the communists get people to two the progressive freedom killing line.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote workingman:

The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that.

Where did you get this zany idea? Where in the Constitution does it say this?

From the founding fathers who gave the federal government 18 jobs to do and left everything else to the states and people. Freedom can not be achieved with the federal government dictating how you live your life.

That is NOT what the Constitution says. You are applying your own reality to what it actually does say. You should stop twisting what the Founders proposed into your perverted reality.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote workingman:

Capitalism gives everyone a chance to improve their lives. There is no other system on earth that allows you to start out dirt poor and end up as rich as you want to be. re-education is how the communists get people to two the progressive freedom killing line.

Obviously you have not idea what the definite of "capitalism" actually is. Another perversion of your reality.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

From workingman:

"I am not a slave to anyone but the federal government who uses it's monopoly on force to confiscate my labor to support people who are unwilling to support themselves. Capitalism gives everyone a chance to improve their lives. There is no other system on earth that allows you to start out dirt poor and end up as rich as you want to be.

re-education is how the communists get people to two the progressive freedom killing line."

That is point for point what Fox news teaches it's listeners on a daily basis. That is the problem I run into among all the conservative friends that I have. Notice how it's worded. "confiscate my labor to support people who are not willing to support themselves". Instead of "contribute some of my labor to help support people who are willing to but can't support themselves". You would think that all of your taxes goes to paying somebody else's bills. Most of your taxes go to the defense of the country and to supporting the common infrastuctures that we all use.

You are just another zombie sounding board for your masters and that makes you dangerous to the nation. They want their constituents to transfix on the other constituents so that you don't even notice them pulling the strings. Snap out of it and learn to think for yourself. Come up with solutions to the problems instead of echoing the mob.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Government spending on free stuff leads to, to much government power. The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that. We are getting to the point that the dems who promise the most free stuff will win by a landslide. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes. Couple that with 1/3 on government handouts and you are rapidly approaching total government control.

workingman why is it that I can;t get through one of your posts without spotting a lie. ZERO percent of Americans pay no taxes (that is unless they are completely of the grid). The bottom 49% pay state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes (via rent if they don't own), they pay gas taxes when they go to the pump or buy a bus ticket, What's more is that some of the taxes here are REGRESSIVE meaning, the poor pay a HIGHER rate of sales tax in comparison to their salary than the rich. It's like you have no effing clue what an effective tax rate is or that there are 934827543908173298174390 taxes beyond Federal Income taxes. Wake the hell up or go home.

I am awake and I am not lieing, the IRS has said that 49 percent of the working americans pay zero federal income tax, some of them get back more money than they pay in including what is paid in, in payrol taxes. Rich people pay all of the same taxes as poor infact they pay in more. Their houses a bigger and nicer so their property tax is higher. They buy nicer more expensive items so sales.tax is also higher. demonizing the rich is not the answer.

BACKPEDAL. You are changing your statement. You said they pay no taxes. That is not the case. They pay quite a bit of taxes. In fact, I feel safe in saying that Mitt Romney has both a lower effective rate than virtually everyone in poverty AND has probably recieved more in federal handouts - either through personal deductions or through corporate welfare - than a person in poverty will ever see in their entire life.

There is a difference between demonizing the rich and being sober to reality.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

None of it is free stuff. I would wager that about 80% of what you call "free stuff" is actually redistribution of wealth the poor have created themselves back to them after their employers have gouged their wages for profit. A capitalist produces NO WEALTH OR PRODUCTIVITY WHATSOEVER. The ONLY thing a Capitalist does is "own" means of production and siphon off profit from OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK. You need to seriously reeducate yourself. You have bought into the corporatist ideology and drank the coolaid. It's great for them. It makes you passively committed to supporting their rape of the common man through the theft of someone's productivity through "property rights."

PROPERTY IS THEFT!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Capitalism is nothing more than slavery redifined. You are a slave to your capitalist master. They only give you what they have to in order to insure your passive complicity in a system that will only favor them. The ONLY solution is democracy - democratizing the economy. That doesn't mean state ownership but it does mean eliminating Capitalism - a totalitarian economic system. If you endorse freedom so much why are you supporting and defending corporate monarchs?

I am not a slave to anyone but the federal government who uses it's monopoly on force to confiscate my labor to support people who are unwilling to support themselves. Capitalism gives everyone a chance to improve their lives. There is no other system on earth that allows you to start out dirt poor and end up as rich as you want to be. re-education is how the communists get people to two the progressive freedom killing line.

The government does not have a monopoly on force. Military and police are not the only forms of coersion. My employer chooses my health insurance company because it is cheapest for him. I have no choice in the matter. My company chooses which companies I am allowed to use for a 401K. I have no choice in the matter. When I recently bought a new cell phone, I found out that AT&T FORCES me to add a data plan on if I use a smartphone on their network whether I want to or not - I have no choice in the matter. If I "choose" a different company (in reality I have been coerced to look elsewhere), I had only one option in my area that had the plans I wanted - I had no choice in the matter. When I started service with them, I was able to use a smartphone with no data but the phone service is so horrible that it drops calls every few blocks if I am driving through town. I have no choice in the matter. I live in a large town with many localized industrial zones. They pollute the air I breathe and the water I drink. I have no choice in the matter. I cannot "force" them to leave and if I "choose" (in reality I have been coerced) to leave, then I have only "choices" of one companies pollution or anothers. I have no choice in the matter.

You are blind. Capitalism achieves one thing - profit for capitalists. It does not produce choices for customers. It produces only the choices that allow capitalists to best exploit labor and to make profit from their customers. This is something that gets progressively worse over time. Example: In the 1970s you could buy stereo equipment that would last upwards of 30 years if well maintained. You could buy cars that could last as long if well maintained. This was when labor was strong and industry was driven by ingenuity and high craftsmanship - strong American and democratic ideals - you were making things that benefited society in the best way possible. Now a days, most cars go to shit after about 12-15 years and you are lucky if a piece of stereo equipment lasts more than 5 years. Why is that? It is the libertarian response to say - well that is what people wanted!! They wanted cheap shit and lower prices so that is what they bought!! Bullshit. Customers don't choose how campanies make things. What happened is that capitalists demanded a growing profit margin. Rather than continuing to sell quality goods to customers, they sold similar goods with cheaper materials FOR THE SAME PRICE as the previous quality goods. It had NOTHING to do with customers getting a better deal. The capitalists demanded a bigger profit margin. So, they shipped manufacturing to Chinese and Mexican plants where they could pay slave labor wages. The result was poorer quality craftsmanship. It had NOTHING to do with better deals for customers.

Capitalism is defined by asymetrical power relationships. As such, those with more power HAVE MORE CHOICE. And those with more choice COERCE THOSE WITH LESS POWER to accepting their terms.

What is more coercive: The ability of a small few to LIMIT THE CHOICES OF ALL OF SOCIETY or democratic governance where EVERYONE gets a voice in the choices available to them?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Government spending on free stuff leads to, to much government power. The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that. We are getting to the point that the dems who promise the most free stuff will win by a landslide. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes. Couple that with 1/3 on government handouts and you are rapidly approaching total government control.

workingman why is it that I can;t get through one of your posts without spotting a lie. ZERO percent of Americans pay no taxes (that is unless they are completely of the grid). The bottom 49% pay state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes (via rent if they don't own), they pay gas taxes when they go to the pump or buy a bus ticket, What's more is that some of the taxes here are REGRESSIVE meaning, the poor pay a HIGHER rate of sales tax in comparison to their salary than the rich. It's like you have no effing clue what an effective tax rate is or that there are 934827543908173298174390 taxes beyond Federal Income taxes. Wake the hell up or go home.

I am awake and I am not lieing, the IRS has said that 49 percent of the working americans pay zero federal income tax, some of them get back more money than they pay in including what is paid in, in payrol taxes. Rich people pay all of the same taxes as poor infact they pay in more. Their houses a bigger and nicer so their property tax is higher. They buy nicer more expensive items so sales.tax is also higher. demonizing the rich is not the answer.

BACKPEDAL. You are changing your statement. You said they pay no taxes. That is not the case. They pay quite a bit of taxes. In fact, I feel safe in saying that Mitt Romney has both a lower effective rate than virtually everyone in poverty AND has probably recieved more in federal handouts - either through personal deductions or through corporate welfare - than a person in poverty will ever see in their entire life.

There is a difference between demonizing the rich and being sober to reality.

Not backpedaling just forgot that if you are not super specific on this page you confuse the average progressive reader into stupidity. I am sober about reality. The top 1 percent pay in 45 to 50 percent of all tax money paid in, the the next 49 percent pay in the other 50 percent and the bottom 50 percent psy in zero. The top 1 percent earned their money why can't they keep the majority if it? There are no special deductions for the rich there are deductions that anyone can get you just have to know if you quailify.for them.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Government spending on free stuff leads to, to much government power. The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that. We are getting to the point that the dems who promise the most free stuff will win by a landslide. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes. Couple that with 1/3 on government handouts and you are rapidly approaching total government control.

workingman why is it that I can;t get through one of your posts without spotting a lie. ZERO percent of Americans pay no taxes (that is unless they are completely of the grid). The bottom 49% pay state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes (via rent if they don't own), they pay gas taxes when they go to the pump or buy a bus ticket, What's more is that some of the taxes here are REGRESSIVE meaning, the poor pay a HIGHER rate of sales tax in comparison to their salary than the rich. It's like you have no effing clue what an effective tax rate is or that there are 934827543908173298174390 taxes beyond Federal Income taxes. Wake the hell up or go home.

I am awake and I am not lieing, the IRS has said that 49 percent of the working americans pay zero federal income tax, some of them get back more money than they pay in including what is paid in, in payrol taxes. Rich people pay all of the same taxes as poor infact they pay in more. Their houses a bigger and nicer so their property tax is higher. They buy nicer more expensive items so sales.tax is also higher. demonizing the rich is not the answer.

BACKPEDAL. You are changing your statement. You said they pay no taxes. That is not the case. They pay quite a bit of taxes. In fact, I feel safe in saying that Mitt Romney has both a lower effective rate than virtually everyone in poverty AND has probably recieved more in federal handouts - either through personal deductions or through corporate welfare - than a person in poverty will ever see in their entire life.

There is a difference between demonizing the rich and being sober to reality.

Not backpedaling just forgot that if you are not super specific on this page you confuse the average progressive reader into stupidity. I am sober about reality. The top 1 percent pay in 45 to 50 percent of all tax money paid in, the the next 49 percent pay in the other 50 percent and the bottom 50 percent psy in zero. The top 1 percent earned their money why can't they keep the majority if it? There are no special deductions for the rich there are deductions that anyone can get you just have to know if you quailify.for them.

Stupidity is lacking precision with your words. Grow up. A large portion of the top 1% didn't earn their money. They siphoned it off of other people who actually contribute.

There is no difference between a Capitalist and a Welfare Queen. They both sit on their ass and collect a check. Oh except one has several houses, a private jet, and a dog they carry around in a suitcase while the other lives in poverty. Which one is the real problem?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Government spending on free stuff leads to, to much government power. The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that. We are getting to the point that the dems who promise the most free stuff will win by a landslide. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes. Couple that with 1/3 on government handouts and you are rapidly approaching total government control.

workingman why is it that I can;t get through one of your posts without spotting a lie. ZERO percent of Americans pay no taxes (that is unless they are completely of the grid). The bottom 49% pay state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes (via rent if they don't own), they pay gas taxes when they go to the pump or buy a bus ticket, What's more is that some of the taxes here are REGRESSIVE meaning, the poor pay a HIGHER rate of sales tax in comparison to their salary than the rich. It's like you have no effing clue what an effective tax rate is or that there are 934827543908173298174390 taxes beyond Federal Income taxes. Wake the hell up or go home.

I am awake and I am not lieing, the IRS has said that 49 percent of the working americans pay zero federal income tax, some of them get back more money than they pay in including what is paid in, in payrol taxes. Rich people pay all of the same taxes as poor infact they pay in more. Their houses a bigger and nicer so their property tax is higher. They buy nicer more expensive items so sales.tax is also higher. demonizing the rich is not the answer.

BACKPEDAL. You are changing your statement. You said they pay no taxes. That is not the case. They pay quite a bit of taxes. In fact, I feel safe in saying that Mitt Romney has both a lower effective rate than virtually everyone in poverty AND has probably recieved more in federal handouts - either through personal deductions or through corporate welfare - than a person in poverty will ever see in their entire life.

There is a difference between demonizing the rich and being sober to reality.

Not backpedaling just forgot that if you are not super specific on this page you confuse the average progressive reader into stupidity. I am sober about reality. The top 1 percent pay in 45 to 50 percent of all tax money paid in, the the next 49 percent pay in the other 50 percent and the bottom 50 percent psy in zero. The top 1 percent earned their money why can't they keep the majority if it? There are no special deductions for the rich there are deductions that anyone can get you just have to know if you quailify.for them.

Stupidity is lacking precision with your words. Grow up. A large portion of the top 1% didn't earn their money. They siphoned it off of other people who actually contribute.

There is no difference between a Capitalist and a Welfare Queen. They both sit on their ass and collect a check. Oh except one has several houses, a private jet, and a dog they carry around in a suitcase while the other lives in poverty. Which one is the real problem?

The problem is you do not know what a capitalist is, the capitalist risks his money in an investment to make a profit. That investment could be anything from loaning money to a small business so they can expand to buying equipment for his own farm. Either way they have earned their money even if they inherited it and made it grow through investments.

The welfare system is the problem not the capitalist. With out the capitalist most if not all of the technological gains we have made would have never been invented.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

I just told you directly above that that is a false hypothesis, given the evidence.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

I think it is quite clear that middle of the road policies lead to statism. The US is a perfect example. We have been increasing government since the beginning of the country. There have been some reductions after wars but the government is always bigger post-war than pre-war. We're perilously close, if not already past, the tipping point in 2012.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

It's fascinating that you guys can't see an obvious fact in front of your faces.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:.. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes.

Pays no income taxes.

Because Republicans cut their taxes and wages didn't keep up with productivity growth.

And I would have thought that Libertarians would like that idea: cutting people's taxes.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote JTaylor: ... If we cut taxes to the upper class then they will have more money to expand their businesses and create more higher-wage jobs, therefore eliminating the need for anyone to have government help. It's really simple.

I can't tell if your joking or not. Lots of people in the upper class don't make business decisions to expand 'their' business.

Many of the wealthiest simply gamble in the stock market.

For those that remain, note that federal income taxes tax profits, not revenue - so high taxes might even encourage people to invest back into their own business to avoid taxes.

Lastly, why not give tax cuts to people who expand their business? Well the Republicans rejected those proposals too.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:.. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes.

Pays no income taxes.

Because Republicans cut their taxes and wages didn't keep up with productivity growth.

And I would have thought that Libertarians would like that idea: cutting people's taxes.

Yes they do like lower taxes but not when you raise taxes on tbe rich in order to pay for the poor.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:The problem is you do not know what a capitalist is, the capitalist risks his money in an investment to make a profit. .

I think you guys are both arguing now by exaggeration.

Ah2 must realize that some capitalists do take some risks when they start some businesses. That's often how many small businesses get started.

But Workingman does not realize that many capitalists- like Romney or Paris Hilton - simply get money from ownership and take no risks or invovlement in the company at all. Further, many wealthy people 'start' businesses with inherited money or with money that if they loose it will not make them destitute.

So, Workingman should not treat the poor as simply welfare queens and all the wealthy as the epitamy of virture. Nor should Ah2 chatise all capitalists as lazy martini drinkers lounging around the pool.

In the end, it should be possible to say that we need to raise taxes back to historical norms, and be able to take care of the war who are suffering from an economy destroyed by outsourcing.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

I think it is quite clear that middle of the road policies lead to statism. The US is a perfect example. We have been increasing government since the beginning of the country. There have been some reductions after wars but the government is always bigger post-war than pre-war. We're perilously close, if not already past, the tipping point in 2012.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

It's fascinating that you guys can't see an obvious fact in front of your faces.

The theory was not proven false by the collapse of the soviet union or reforms in china. China moved towards capitalism after the communist ussr collapsed under the weight of the totalitarian government.

The people of russia got so fed up by the shortages brought on by socialism/communism that they finally revolted. Cuba and china were on the same path until they backed off tbe hard core leftwing communistic path that the left in the u.s. are pursuing.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:The problem is you do not know what a capitalist is, the capitalist risks his money in an investment to make a profit. .

I think you guys are both arguing now by exaggeration.

Ah2 must realize that some capitalists do take some risks when they start some businesses. That's often how many small businesses get started.

But Workingman does not realize that many capitalists- like Romney or Paris Hilton - simply get money from ownership and take no risks or invovlement in the company at all. Further, many wealthy people 'start' businesses with inherited money or with money that if they loose it will not make them destitute.

So, Workingman should not treat the poor as simply welfare queens and all the wealthy as the epitamy of virture. Nor should Ah2 chatise all capitalists as lazy martini drinkers lounging around the pool.

In the end, it should be possible to say that we need to raise taxes back to historical norms, and be able to take care of the war who are suffering from an economy destroyed by outsourcing.

The federal government has spent over 15 trillion dollars on the war on poverty and there are still poor people. You csn not legislate the poor away.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

I think it is quite clear that middle of the road policies lead to statism. The US is a perfect example. We have been increasing government since the beginning of the country. There have been some reductions after wars but the government is always bigger post-war than pre-war. We're perilously close, if not already past, the tipping point in 2012.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

It's fascinating that you guys can't see an obvious fact in front of your faces.

The theory was not proven false by the collapse of the soviet union or reforms in china. China moved towards capitalism after the communist ussr collapsed under the weight of the totalitarian government. The people of russia got so fed up by the shortages brought on by socialism/communism that they finally revolted. Cuba and china were on the same path until they backed off tbe hard core leftwing communistic path that the left in the u.s. are pursuing.

Hate to tell you this but neither the Soviet Union nor "Communist" China were actually Socialist or Communist. They were Oligarchies much like the one we have here. It is a complete contradiction to call oneself "communist" and then have a totalitarian, autocratic, one-party state.

REEDUCATE YOURSELF.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman: Socialism has no choice but to lead to communism and governmental control.

Yes, that was Hayek's hypothesis wasn't it: give people a taste of government control, then pretty soon the people clamor for more benefits, the state grows without bound, and you get the system of the USSR.

That theory was proved false by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of economic areas in China, and the reforms in Cuba.

Meanwhile, mixed economies continue to thrive and not turn to Stalinism all over the world.

Hayek was wrong.

In fact, one might argue that the militarism and corruption in the USSR was simply a continuation of militarism and corruption in feudalistic Russia, or China or the military dictatorship of pre-revolutionary Cuba. But, I digress.

The sad thing is we are headed towards government control and tyranny. One third of the people living inside the U.S. is on some type of government hand out. It is getting to the point where the only people who will get elected are those who promise more and more free stuff. This can and will lead to communism.

You are blinded by the propogandized words of your puppet masters. One third of the people living inside the U.S. are living on some type of government hand out for a reason. You don't just get in line for "free stuff". I don't get "free stuff". Where's my "free stuff"? I'm lucky enough to have a good life where myself and my wife are employed. There are millions who are left standing in the game of musical chairs. If your propogandized rhetoric were true then Democrats would win every election by a landslide. Who doesn't want "free stuff"? Spending on the needy is in direct response to our economy and it's production. The sending of Americanised jobs overseas by the business leaders in this country is more responsible for the increase in social spending than anyone elected to office.

You and LS are usually talking about two different things. He's arguing against larger government in terms of power while you're arguing against larger government in terms of spending on the lazy people wanting "free stuff".

Government spending on free stuff leads to, to much government power. The federal government was orginally.supposed to be so small and powerless it could be drown in a bath tub we need to get back to that. We are getting to the point that the dems who promise the most free stuff will win by a landslide. 49 percent of working americans pay no taxes. Couple that with 1/3 on government handouts and you are rapidly approaching total government control.

workingman why is it that I can;t get through one of your posts without spotting a lie. ZERO percent of Americans pay no taxes (that is unless they are completely of the grid). The bottom 49% pay state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes (via rent if they don't own), they pay gas taxes when they go to the pump or buy a bus ticket, What's more is that some of the taxes here are REGRESSIVE meaning, the poor pay a HIGHER rate of sales tax in comparison to their salary than the rich. It's like you have no effing clue what an effective tax rate is or that there are 934827543908173298174390 taxes beyond Federal Income taxes. Wake the hell up or go home.

I am awake and I am not lieing, the IRS has said that 49 percent of the working americans pay zero federal income tax, some of them get back more money than they pay in including what is paid in, in payrol taxes. Rich people pay all of the same taxes as poor infact they pay in more. Their houses a bigger and nicer so their property tax is higher. They buy nicer more expensive items so sales.tax is also higher. demonizing the rich is not the answer.

BACKPEDAL. You are changing your statement. You said they pay no taxes. That is not the case. They pay quite a bit of taxes. In fact, I feel safe in saying that Mitt Romney has both a lower effective rate than virtually everyone in poverty AND has probably recieved more in federal handouts - either through personal deductions or through corporate welfare - than a person in poverty will ever see in their entire life.

There is a difference between demonizing the rich and being sober to reality.

Not backpedaling just forgot that if you are not super specific on this page you confuse the average progressive reader into stupidity. I am sober about reality. The top 1 percent pay in 45 to 50 percent of all tax money paid in, the the next 49 percent pay in the other 50 percent and the bottom 50 percent psy in zero. The top 1 percent earned their money why can't they keep the majority if it? There are no special deductions for the rich there are deductions that anyone can get you just have to know if you quailify.for them.

Stupidity is lacking precision with your words. Grow up. A large portion of the top 1% didn't earn their money. They siphoned it off of other people who actually contribute.

There is no difference between a Capitalist and a Welfare Queen. They both sit on their ass and collect a check. Oh except one has several houses, a private jet, and a dog they carry around in a suitcase while the other lives in poverty. Which one is the real problem?

The problem is you do not know what a capitalist is, the capitalist risks his money in an investment to make a profit. That investment could be anything from loaning money to a small business so they can expand to buying equipment for his own farm. Either way they have earned their money even if they inherited it and made it grow through investments. The welfare system is the problem not the capitalist. With out the capitalist most if not all of the technological gains we have made would have never been invented.

I know what a capitalist is. They risk very little in reality. The real risk takers are entrepenuers but that isn't even close to the same thing.

Capitalists accomplish abosolutely nothing. The most significant technological advances in the modern era have been accomplished by government R&D - either through direct funding and research or through subsidies and regulations that move private industry forward. Private industry is lethargic, not responsive. What the market would do in decades, democracy can accomplish in one election cycle. Do you honestly think you would be seeing hybrid vehicles or elecric cars (which people obviously want) if the government had not put into place emissions deadlines for 2014? Cash 4 clunkers? R&D funding for all the major auto manufacturers to develop hybrid technology? Of course they wouldn't. They were making profits off of gas. And their capitalist handlers were getting kickbacks through oil speculation by insuring our addiction on oil.

Do you honestly think we would have nuclear technology right now if we left it to the private industry? Hell no. No insurance company would ever insure the R&D of such a pursuit. Can you imagine a private company attempting to split atoms on its own and try to get an insurance company to cover it? lol... Completely idiotic. We have nuclear power because of military R&D and Federal insurance. Period.

The internet was created because of a military R&D project. No one in the private industry was attempting anything like it. It wasn't even a gleam in their eye.

Time and time again, the market has proven to get into ruts - they stagnate technological progress in preference for quick profits. The fault in your theory is that you believe that Capitalism produces the same incentives and effects now as it did in its infancy. I do not deny that intially capitalism spurred on significant amounts of innovation, productivity, and technological advancement. Those days are long over. The only thing Capitalism is still developing to any degree is computer technology and new financial mechanisms to create "profit" but absolutely no real wealth. That is where we are at. This is exactly the historical tragectory that Marx predicted. Capitalism produces significant amounts of wealth in its infancy, and, as it develops, it begins to consume itself until it collapses.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:The problem is you do not know what a capitalist is, the capitalist risks his money in an investment to make a profit. .

I think you guys are both arguing now by exaggeration.

Ah2 must realize that some capitalists do take some risks when they start some businesses. That's often how many small businesses get started.

But Workingman does not realize that many capitalists- like Romney or Paris Hilton - simply get money from ownership and take no risks or invovlement in the company at all. Further, many wealthy people 'start' businesses with inherited money or with money that if they loose it will not make them destitute.

So, Workingman should not treat the poor as simply welfare queens and all the wealthy as the epitamy of virture. Nor should Ah2 chatise all capitalists as lazy martini drinkers lounging around the pool.

In the end, it should be possible to say that we need to raise taxes back to historical norms, and be able to take care of the war who are suffering from an economy destroyed by outsourcing.

Small businesses get started by entrepenuers not capitalists. Small businesses get started by individuals taking out loans from banks and it is completely on them. The risk is theirs. Even the bank risks very little in these cases. Particularly now that we have debtors prisons.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:The problem is you do not know what a capitalist is, the capitalist risks his money in an investment to make a profit. .

I think you guys are both arguing now by exaggeration.

Ah2 must realize that some capitalists do take some risks when they start some businesses. That's often how many small businesses get started.

But Workingman does not realize that many capitalists- like Romney or Paris Hilton - simply get money from ownership and take no risks or invovlement in the company at all. Further, many wealthy people 'start' businesses with inherited money or with money that if they loose it will not make them destitute.

So, Workingman should not treat the poor as simply welfare queens and all the wealthy as the epitamy of virture. Nor should Ah2 chatise all capitalists as lazy martini drinkers lounging around the pool.

In the end, it should be possible to say that we need to raise taxes back to historical norms, and be able to take care of the war who are suffering from an economy destroyed by outsourcing.

The federal government has spent over 15 trillion dollars on the war on poverty and there are still poor people. You csn not legislate the poor away.

You can legislate poverty away. They just did it wrong. The types of policies you would need to elminate poverty would never be supported politiically but it is very possible. You could end poverty tomorrow with the correct legislation.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system