LookieNoNookie
Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
The alternative is to keep doing what we're doing...and that's only pushing the pain farther down the road.
That is not the only alternative.
I tend to agree with you Tazzy, and frankly, I'm not at all convinced Ron Paul is the savior he's made out to be, but he's definitely (in my opinion) headed in a more logical direction than others.
I heard it said on some web news report today (don't know if it's true...but it does seem to fit with his ideology....staying out of other people's internal affairs globally) that he feels we should not have gone to war with Hitler.
To me, that one seems fairly obvious. Hitler was evil personified, and without any need to go into the atrocities he or his staff committed, I can't imagine the world today had Hitler been successful in his efforts.
Someone here on this board stated recently that the district he comes from is one of the poorest in the country or words to that effect (hopefully I'm not misquoting the writer here). And that it's largely because, as I understand things, he refuses to bring home the bacon on Uncle Sam's credit card....yet they keep electing him back to do the job. That speaks volumes to me.
My guess is it's because he consistently says "this is what I'm going to do when I get there" and then does exactly that, with no deviation.
His district it would appear, believes they can trust him...and from what I've seen of the guy....that would seem to be exactly what you'll get: What you see. What he's done and said, the same way for 30+ years.
You're right, there's never just 2 ways. There's a myriad of middle ground(s) and paths to take, but one thing is for certain and simply isn't up for debate: We can't keep doing what we've been doing....it just ain't working, and it's a pathway to economic destruction.
The logic of Bill Clinton and his free trade agreement was honestly no different in many ways than Henry Ford's decision to double the wages of his employees when he realized his workers couldn't afford to buy the very product they toiled at making day in and day out.
It's entirely logical that until the rest of the world's wages rise to our level, they can't possibly afford to buy products made by Americans, and therefore, global free trade creates more customers, and indeed, that is exactly what happened by virtue.
It also sent jobs overseas and next door and still further South of Mexico where wages and work rules were vastly different and less stringent. It's also so decimated our manufacturing base that if we were to get into a major worldwide conflict (which many of the brightest minds seem to agree is heading our way), we'd be hard pressed to do what we did in WWII.
On the other hand, and the evidence is in so many cases where the shit has hit the fan, Americans rise to the challenge, and I suspect they'd do so again when called up. But, like they say..."if it walks like a duck talks like a duck....it's probably a duck"....we simply don't have the manufacturing capacity....more importantly, the requisite skill sets to do what was required of us 50+ years ago.
In 30 years China's wages will near ours, as will multiple other countries globally such as Mexico and others, but there's an obvious lot of pain for American workers (stagnating wages) in the meantime. Germany, one of the highest wage countries on the planet, with some of the most generous social benefits, still blows the doors off of countries in their exports where wages are mere fractions of their own, so it's not all about wages, rather, determination.
Japan (more or less the size of California, but with nearly 4 times the population), with absolutely no natural resources to speak of is the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their wages are relatively high as compared our own, yet they export incredibly well, using ingenuity and a lot of the rest of the worlds components to manufacture same.
American's have lost some of that drive through both fear (that others are overtaking us...."the sky is falling") and as well, some of the taxation rate changes since Reagan, have essentially allowed the upper 10%, for all practical purposes, to siphon the wealth out from under the lower 90%...leaving them in the precarious position of needing every thin red cent to pay their bills, causing so many (last count was around 45% - 55% of whom don't pay any taxes at all) to be incapable of participating in either the country's financial future, or in so many cases....their own.
As I said in a previous post, Bush lowered the federal income tax on the wealthiest group from 39.6% to something along the lines 35%.
And yet, the majority of those same people when it was proposed stated loudly "no thank you".
I have absolutely no concept why capital gains taxes (those profits that are taxed, made on investments as opposed to a paycheck) are taxed at 15% as opposed to an upper limit of 35%.
It's my opinion, wherever the gain came from...if you made a profit (including "normal citizens income less mortgage, child care or other expenses) should be taxed at the same rate, or if the rates differ at all, wealthier folks should pay more because they can (more easily) afford it, but everyone should pay something...even 5%. But they can't if the wealthy are given essentially free money.
I don't know what the rate should be, and 'll be the last man kicking and screaming to take money away from people who by their very successes, are the ones most capable (and most likely) of providing investments that create jobs.
But I think honestly, their rates are far too low. What's the right number? I just don't know....that kind of math is a bit above my pay grade, but since Reagan lowered those rates....disparity between those who have a lot and those who have little has widened every decade.
I think the evidence is clear; Taxes on the wealthy are too low (and most of them agree).
The same goes for SSI taxes. If memory serves, the cap is somewhere near 200K, after which, every penny you earn above that is absolutely free of SSI taxes.
Why?
More than likely because those above that level spent a great deal of money to cause that exact thing to occur, and will continue to do so as long as they can. It's clearly cheaper for them to send 5K to a lobbyist group (such as AARP, who is really nothing more than an insurance agency) than to pay 75K in additional taxes.
Is it their job to shore up SSI? Probably not, but it's a program (SSI) designed to assist those on the middle and lower rungs of economic life. And I think most rational folks would agree that the government should have absolutely no right to attach those funds for any use other than paying benefits. i.e a lockbox.....untouchable.
Now, clearly, that would mean, once that candy store is closed....taxes will have to rise because, to continue spending even at an 80% level of the past 40+ years (since Johnson took Social Security "off the books"), we'd need to pay more individually or....agree to fewer services.
It's my opinion we need to do both.
Anyone, including those at the lowest economic level would do at least twice as well by opting out and investing their own money but, given a choice over a new TV or investing in their financial future....most will choose the TV because, regardless of their age, they tell themselves "I've got plenty of time to worry about that"....and no one does (have that amount of time). Hence why SSI exists.
I too think some of Ron Paul's ideas are a bit radical, maybe even more than radical, but today we have cancer, not a head cold and to be entirely truthful, it's now just simply too far gone to just have 3 days of bed rest and some aspirins do the trick.
What's the answer?
I haven't a clue.
I just know that what we've been doing doesn't work and hasn't worked.
And more of the same is just flat out the wrong medicine.
< Message edited by LookieNoNookie -- 12/27/2011 7:22:12 PM >
|
RE: What is it about Ron Paul? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread