Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
Yea... lets just let people starve while they beg for donations... We have the resources, the moral obligation, and we are the only nation able or willing to do it.
Butch
Again, you are free to donate to as many charities as you want but don't forcibly take money from me in order to do so.
I think we should all just vote for Bernie Sanders because, as proud Americans, we should allow the government to take 90% of our paycheck (Hell, they can just cut our wages to ten percent and avoid the "middle man". Let's get rid of that IRS) and we should be honored to slave away for the greater glory of the empire (and the lazy, ignorant fucks that don't want to work).
Michael
I honestly believe that, for the average person, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. The amount of money that gets taken by the government is really not that much compared to food, rent, gas, utilities, insurance, and other things necessary to survive. I can never understand why some believe that $200 a month in taxes to the government is "too much" while at the same time believing that $1000 in rent a month is "reasonable." The private sector charges way too much for their goods and services, and for this, they need to be heavily taxed on their profits. Either that, or we need price controls.
That's another part of the problem with the current system, as well as with taxation and government spending. The government ends up giving our tax money to private sector entities for a lot of things. For example, when the government uses tax money to build/repair roads (at least around here), they don't use government employees and equipment to do the project. They pay a private sector business to do it. Or when the military needs a new missile or plane - the government doesn't build its own factories or hire its own people; they farm it out to the private sector. All the extra money in taxes does nothing but get fed to the private sector, and that's what is wrong here.
If you take out the profit motive, all these executive salaries, and all the corruption involved in it and removed the private sector entirely from public spending, then it would likely be a lot cheaper and save the taxpayers a ton of money.
If it comes down to one of the other, I'd rather give my money to a government (however imperfect) rather than give it to the private sector (aka "The Mafia"). At least in theory, the government is supposed to try to do the right thing (unless they're taking bribes from the Mafia), while the private sector will stop at nothing for greater profits. If we assume that every private sector businessperson is like Al Capone (which we should), then the choice becomes clear.
In the end, the bottom line is that we have two choices: Do we allow our elected officials to lead, or would we rather allow the unelected Mafia to control things?
Zonie, if you're on the low end of the tax scale - thats true. But there are a lot of americans who the biggest expense, by far, is the federal govenment. If you're a two professional family earning 250K a year - the government is costing you 100k a year - maybe 75 if you maximize your deductions.
So, I'm supposed to sympathize with that? I'm supposed to care about the trials and tribulations of the ungrateful rich who earn 250k a year? As I see it, they still have 150k left if they're taxed 100k. That's still plenty of money left to live on. (And I know they didn't actually "earn" that much, because nobody in this universe is actually worth that much, except in the imaginations of all those special snowflakes who think they're "worth it." That's just an illusion based on faith, not reality.)
quote:
You think your landlord is unelected Mafia? Or the restaurant owner down the street? Or the supermarket? The reason private enterprise is better is they can't compel you to eat at restaurant x. The government can.
You make it sound like food and shelter are luxuries. If you need it, you have to get it from somewhere, either the Mafia or the government. Perhaps it's better to give people a choice. The government doesn't own restaurants or supermarkets (not any around here), so the people have no real choice. And there aren't many properties directly owned by the government, so people are forced to use the private sector. They have no other choice. So, if the government gives people options for housing, food, etc., in addition to the private sector, then that might be better. At least people would have the choice of getting their goods and services from the government if they want, and those who still wish to use the private sector would have that option as well.
I'm not talking about giving away stuff for free, but just at a more reasonable cost to take the pressure off of working people. You know, the vast majority of people who don't earn $250k per year.
And this wouldn't necessarily be bad for the private sector either. One thing that I hear often is that businesses are complaining that their labor costs are so expensive, which is what drives outsourcing to other countries where the labor is cheaper. Well, the reason why workers have to demand so much in wages is because their fucking expenses are too fucking high. Lower their expenses, and maybe they can live on lower wages, and the businesses who employ them can also save money.
And yes, they are mafia, because most of the money they get is not anything other than extortion because they feel they're entitled to a huge return on their investment - sometimes exorbitantly so. We have to pay extra to satisfy the delusions of people who think they're "worth it."
quote:
Regarding your hypothesis that government could do it cheaper - have you ever heard of an example of the government doing it cheaper than private enterprise? Please give examples.
I think if we compare our healthcare system to countries with socialized medicine, we find that the quality is better and is far less expensive.
Also, have you ever seen a privately-owned army defeat an army controlled by the government? That's part of the reason why national governments became more powerful than family-owned "duchies" and other weaker entities. They became swallowed up during the rise of nations and stronger centralized governments. If the private sector did things so much better, that never would have happened. Trying to organize a society through a mish-mash of competing private sector entities creates too many internal weaknesses and is ultimately more inefficient due to everyone having a "what's in it for me" attitude.
Also, during World War II, the situation called for drastic changes that ultimately proved to be quite beneficial to the economy and relatively efficient. It did involve some wage and price controls, and the government had to rein in the greed factor in business, as well as deal with labor squabbles. All these "horrible" progressive and liberal programs (some even called them "communistic") led us to an unprecedented period of affluence which improved the US standard of living by leaps and bounds. But when folks like Nixon and Reagan ended those programs, the economy tanked and we've been in the crapper ever since. Now, we have a rust belt and a crumbling infrastructure, along with huge debts, deficits, and all kinds of other economic problems. You guys blame Obama, but most of these problems originated back in the 70s and 80s when the New Deal and Great Society were gutted. You can't blame Obama for processes which were started way back then.
quote:
Finally, if socialism (what you are advocating) is so good - why do people flee every place it has ever been tried? Cuba is a socialists paradise. Free healthcare, free education. But food is scare, poverty is everywhere, and anyone with any sense makes a 90 mile boat ride.
With all due respect, I never really considered this kind of argument to be all that valid. Seriously, what does a country like Cuba have to work with? They're just a small island. I think they tried to make an honest go of it. Besides, if we're just making systemic comparisons, then it would be more valid to compare countries of equal size and level of development. We could compare the socialist paradise with the many capitalist paradises we might see in Latin America, such as Guatemala. Why are all these people crossing much farther distances (farther than 90 mi), across much more treacherous terrain, hot deserts, rugged mountains - just so they can sneak over the border to clean Americans' toilets?
One thing you really can't deny is that, wherever a country has overthrown its previous capitalist regime and implemented socialism, they were still far better off than they were under the previous regime. If things are bad in Cuba, it's only because they were always bad in Cuba, but things vastly improved under socialism. They became far better off than they were under the previous regime. So, it can be said that socialism always improves a country better than what they were.
For Pete's sake, just take a look at how badly the Russians did under their capitalist government in WW1 and compare that to their much better performance under the socialist regime in WW2. Then there's China, which was a total mess for the first half of the 20th century. Japan had them on the ropes all during WW2, yet look at how powerful they became in a very short time after the 1949 Revolution.
Both countries suffered massive devastation in WW2 and greater loss of life than the rest of the Allies combined, yet they were able to rebuild and recover relatively quickly with very little outside help.
Maybe they didn't have the same level of consumerist luxury or opulence that many people in the West seem to value (for whatever reason), but they had it where it counts. They were far from helpless or incapable.
< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 4/16/2016 10:00:11 AM >
|
RE: Damn Welfare Queens! - 
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