Off-Topic Forum "Dow Jones drops 500 points!!" |
|
My one quibble with that last post is this notion that shifting things around ultimately doesn't matter. For 30+ years, this nation has been governed by "trickle down" economics. The idea is that by lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans, rich people will spend more and invest more, which in turn will keep unemployment low and generate rising purchasing power for working class families. Even as people yammer on about "the discredited economics of the Obama administration" this failure spanning three decades somehow still has credibility in the addled minds of zealous tax cut advocates. Unless your goal is for the rich to keep getting richer while everyone else experiences a diminishing quality of life in America, supply-side economics is not a doctrine you should promote.
If nothing else, a measure of assistance for honest workers along with a measure of tax increases on income after the first $250,000 earned in a given year would amount to a partial correction after thirty years of zero gains for 80% of American households. Simple fairness dictates that something be done to balance scales so cruelly unbalanced by conservative political victories in the U.S.
Beyond that, well-crafted policies of support for the middle and lower classes have much potential to promote growth across the board. Increased education spending really does mean a more capable workforce. This is not only good for workers -- it also increases returns on investments in American companies. A genuine single-payer health care system would dramatically cut down on medical absenteeism and disability in the workplace. Again, investors would enjoy improved returns as a result (and small business owners would enjoy enormous flexibility with that huge health care headache taken out of their financial equations.) Even spending on basic scientific research stands to benefit more than just the scientists collecting federal grants. More discoveries in the public domain translate directly into more potential for innovation in business without all the wrangling and litigation that proprietary technologies inevitably require.
I believe the federal government can and should do more to make life better for the average citizen. This is in part because the dominance of know-nothing anarcho-capitalists has produced almost four solid decades of political dereliction when it comes to government action suited to addressing the real problems of the American people. Yet it is also in part because the one theory that actually has produced economic stimulus in reality is Keynesian. Unfocused spending to soften the impact of an economic shock actually works.
Better still, focused spending that simultaneously improves the quality of life for working folks while countering the impact of an economic shock is especially effective. For the people of the United States to get a taste of what adults in other civilized nations have known for generations, we first must shrug off the plague of nonsense that has half our electorate convinced that there is some way our federal government can cut its way to prosperity. There is a good reason the Founding Fathers pushed for a "1 man, 1 vote" system of government. Allowing for obvious corrections like women and non-white men, the principle stands soundly. Yet it continues to serve us poorly when such a large portion of the 80% of Americans shut out from growth under the laissez-faire paradigm get hoodwinked again and again into voting against their own interests.
Regards,
messydom
If nothing else, a measure of assistance for honest workers along with a measure of tax increases on income after the first $250,000 earned in a given year would amount to a partial correction after thirty years of zero gains for 80% of American households. Simple fairness dictates that something be done to balance scales so cruelly unbalanced by conservative political victories in the U.S.
Beyond that, well-crafted policies of support for the middle and lower classes have much potential to promote growth across the board. Increased education spending really does mean a more capable workforce. This is not only good for workers -- it also increases returns on investments in American companies. A genuine single-payer health care system would dramatically cut down on medical absenteeism and disability in the workplace. Again, investors would enjoy improved returns as a result (and small business owners would enjoy enormous flexibility with that huge health care headache taken out of their financial equations.) Even spending on basic scientific research stands to benefit more than just the scientists collecting federal grants. More discoveries in the public domain translate directly into more potential for innovation in business without all the wrangling and litigation that proprietary technologies inevitably require.
I believe the federal government can and should do more to make life better for the average citizen. This is in part because the dominance of know-nothing anarcho-capitalists has produced almost four solid decades of political dereliction when it comes to government action suited to addressing the real problems of the American people. Yet it is also in part because the one theory that actually has produced economic stimulus in reality is Keynesian. Unfocused spending to soften the impact of an economic shock actually works.
Better still, focused spending that simultaneously improves the quality of life for working folks while countering the impact of an economic shock is especially effective. For the people of the United States to get a taste of what adults in other civilized nations have known for generations, we first must shrug off the plague of nonsense that has half our electorate convinced that there is some way our federal government can cut its way to prosperity. There is a good reason the Founding Fathers pushed for a "1 man, 1 vote" system of government. Allowing for obvious corrections like women and non-white men, the principle stands soundly. Yet it continues to serve us poorly when such a large portion of the 80% of Americans shut out from growth under the laissez-faire paradigm get hoodwinked again and again into voting against their own interests.
Regards,
messydom
messydom said:
I believe the federal government can and should do more to make life better for the average citizen.
The federal government should be abolished. It is obsolete. It has never done any good for anyone, and has never solved one single problem to any reasonable person's satisfaction. It is a black hole of beaurocracies into which wealth vanishes too often for evil puposes.
The same way you can't spread democracy abroad at the point of a gun, you can't spread generosity, equity, benevolence at home at gunpoint. That, however, has been the basis of this government at least since FDR, and the foundations laid by Wilson in 1913. You see, the government can't give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else - at gunpoint. Theft is theft and that's all there is to it.
The government isn't here to redistribute wealth.
the one theory that actually has produced economic stimulus in reality is Keynesian. Unfocused spending to soften the impact of an economic shock actually works.
This is too funny. Well, if you like the economy then Keynesian philosophy (its just communism) is wonderful.Keynesian is central planning- its the communist philosophy, (let's be big boys and girls and call a spade a spade)
America is bankrupt. This is a result of this philosophy. Firstly, America must borrow money to pay its bills. Yes, that is a huge problem. Its a problem because it places us at the mercy of our lenders. Its a problem because the lender of last resort (the Federal Reserve) will print money debasing the currency and robbing the value of every dollar in circulation every time it does so. If you hold dollars, you get poorer every time the government borrows money.
The entire central bank - fiat scheme is a problem because the money can never be paid back. In order for the wealth Keynesian ponzi scheme to continue, debt must constantly grow, neither the money supply, or the debt that creates it can ever contract. The Federal Reserve has printed up all dollars in circulation, so to get out of debt - the US would have no money in circulation.
Its a problem because when a working man obtains a mortgage, there is sufficient money in existence to repay that mortgage with interest. The US gov't has the authority to coin its own money, but instead borrows green paper backed up by nothing from a private central bank at interest. (presumably to avoid the strict regulations regarding money in the constitution) However, when the loan principal is printed up out of nothing, the interest which must be repaid has not been created. How can you pay back the principal plus interest when that amount of money doesn't even exist ? ? ? ? ? ?
You sure can't do it with trade deficits, NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT.
I don't think anyone who knew any history would say this nation is better off now than after the civil war - up to banker created panic of 1907. The result of that Hegelian dialectic action was the creation of the 3rd central bank in the US. in 1913The first two were short lived because they were so hated by the citizens.
Suspiciously 1913 also brought us the 16th Amendment.
I haven't the time or energy to educate on the history of central banks or the money trust bloodlines so start by reading "The creature from Jeckyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin if you want to know the detais of the sinister fraud that is fractional reserve banking and fiat currency.
Not that this system hasn't been the only thing enabling America to rise to the mightiest nation in all human history, it has. People don't understand that though. They don't understand the power of Bretton-Woods and being the world reserve currency.
They don't understand the dirty money laundering and petro dollars that comes along with that title. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" for a good understanding.
Trouble is the bankers control it, and for their ends. And they can shut it off as easily as they turned it on, just by saying - we'll have a new reserve currency, or no reserve currency. The Keynesian / communist system I don't endorse. In fact, prior to 1907 everything was going fine. If we had no stock market, but folks could simply invest in the companies they chose to, an economic collapse would be much harder to orchestrate.
If the bankers who crashed the market by 50 % were arrested in 1907 instead of green-lighted to head down the fascist road by merging with the government in creating the central bank (the Federal Reserve isn't federal, and has no reserves) we'd be living in a different country and world right now.
That's my uneducated response.
I believe the federal government can and should do more to make life better for the average citizen.
The federal government should be abolished. It is obsolete. It has never done any good for anyone, and has never solved one single problem to any reasonable person's satisfaction. It is a black hole of beaurocracies into which wealth vanishes too often for evil puposes.
The same way you can't spread democracy abroad at the point of a gun, you can't spread generosity, equity, benevolence at home at gunpoint. That, however, has been the basis of this government at least since FDR, and the foundations laid by Wilson in 1913. You see, the government can't give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else - at gunpoint. Theft is theft and that's all there is to it.
The government isn't here to redistribute wealth.
the one theory that actually has produced economic stimulus in reality is Keynesian. Unfocused spending to soften the impact of an economic shock actually works.
This is too funny. Well, if you like the economy then Keynesian philosophy (its just communism) is wonderful.Keynesian is central planning- its the communist philosophy, (let's be big boys and girls and call a spade a spade)
America is bankrupt. This is a result of this philosophy. Firstly, America must borrow money to pay its bills. Yes, that is a huge problem. Its a problem because it places us at the mercy of our lenders. Its a problem because the lender of last resort (the Federal Reserve) will print money debasing the currency and robbing the value of every dollar in circulation every time it does so. If you hold dollars, you get poorer every time the government borrows money.
The entire central bank - fiat scheme is a problem because the money can never be paid back. In order for the wealth Keynesian ponzi scheme to continue, debt must constantly grow, neither the money supply, or the debt that creates it can ever contract. The Federal Reserve has printed up all dollars in circulation, so to get out of debt - the US would have no money in circulation.
Its a problem because when a working man obtains a mortgage, there is sufficient money in existence to repay that mortgage with interest. The US gov't has the authority to coin its own money, but instead borrows green paper backed up by nothing from a private central bank at interest. (presumably to avoid the strict regulations regarding money in the constitution) However, when the loan principal is printed up out of nothing, the interest which must be repaid has not been created. How can you pay back the principal plus interest when that amount of money doesn't even exist ? ? ? ? ? ?
You sure can't do it with trade deficits, NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT.
I don't think anyone who knew any history would say this nation is better off now than after the civil war - up to banker created panic of 1907. The result of that Hegelian dialectic action was the creation of the 3rd central bank in the US. in 1913The first two were short lived because they were so hated by the citizens.
Suspiciously 1913 also brought us the 16th Amendment.
I haven't the time or energy to educate on the history of central banks or the money trust bloodlines so start by reading "The creature from Jeckyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin if you want to know the detais of the sinister fraud that is fractional reserve banking and fiat currency.
Not that this system hasn't been the only thing enabling America to rise to the mightiest nation in all human history, it has. People don't understand that though. They don't understand the power of Bretton-Woods and being the world reserve currency.
They don't understand the dirty money laundering and petro dollars that comes along with that title. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" for a good understanding.
Trouble is the bankers control it, and for their ends. And they can shut it off as easily as they turned it on, just by saying - we'll have a new reserve currency, or no reserve currency. The Keynesian / communist system I don't endorse. In fact, prior to 1907 everything was going fine. If we had no stock market, but folks could simply invest in the companies they chose to, an economic collapse would be much harder to orchestrate.
If the bankers who crashed the market by 50 % were arrested in 1907 instead of green-lighted to head down the fascist road by merging with the government in creating the central bank (the Federal Reserve isn't federal, and has no reserves) we'd be living in a different country and world right now.
That's my uneducated response.
messydom said: My one quibble with that last post is this notion that shifting things around ultimately doesn't matter. For 30+ years, this nation has been governed by "trickle down" economics. The idea is that by lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans, rich people will spend more and invest more, which in turn will keep unemployment low and generate rising purchasing power for working class families. Even as people yammer on about "the discredited economics of the Obama administration" this failure spanning three decades somehow still has credibility in the addled minds of zealous tax cut advocates. Unless your goal is for the rich to keep getting richer while everyone else experiences a diminishing quality of life in America, supply-side economics is not a doctrine you should promote.
If nothing else, a measure of assistance for honest workers along with a measure of tax increases on income after the first $250,000 earned in a given year would amount to a partial correction after thirty years of zero gains for 80% of American households. Simple fairness dictates that something be done to balance scales so cruelly unbalanced by conservative political victories in the U.S.
Beyond that, well-crafted policies of support for the middle and lower classes have much potential to promote growth across the board. Increased education spending really does mean a more capable workforce. This is not only good for workers -- it also increases returns on investments in American companies. A genuine single-payer health care system would dramatically cut down on medical absenteeism and disability in the workplace. Again, investors would enjoy improved returns as a result (and small business owners would enjoy enormous flexibility with that huge health care headache taken out of their financial equations.) Even spending on basic scientific research stands to benefit more than just the scientists collecting federal grants. More discoveries in the public domain translate directly into more potential for innovation in business without all the wrangling and litigation that proprietary technologies inevitably require.
I believe the federal government can and should do more to make life better for the average citizen. This is in part because the dominance of know-nothing anarcho-capitalists has produced almost four solid decades of political dereliction when it comes to government action suited to addressing the real problems of the American people. Yet it is also in part because the one theory that actually has produced economic stimulus in reality is Keynesian. Unfocused spending to soften the impact of an economic shock actually works.
Better still, focused spending that simultaneously improves the quality of life for working folks while countering the impact of an economic shock is especially effective. For the people of the United States to get a taste of what adults in other civilized nations have known for generations, we first must shrug off the plague of nonsense that has half our electorate convinced that there is some way our federal government can cut its way to prosperity. There is a good reason the Founding Fathers pushed for a "1 man, 1 vote" system of government. Allowing for obvious corrections like women and non-white men, the principle stands soundly. Yet it continues to serve us poorly when such a large portion of the 80% of Americans shut out from growth under the laissez-faire paradigm get hoodwinked again and again into voting against their own interests.
Regards,
messydom
If nothing else, a measure of assistance for honest workers along with a measure of tax increases on income after the first $250,000 earned in a given year would amount to a partial correction after thirty years of zero gains for 80% of American households. Simple fairness dictates that something be done to balance scales so cruelly unbalanced by conservative political victories in the U.S.
Beyond that, well-crafted policies of support for the middle and lower classes have much potential to promote growth across the board. Increased education spending really does mean a more capable workforce. This is not only good for workers -- it also increases returns on investments in American companies. A genuine single-payer health care system would dramatically cut down on medical absenteeism and disability in the workplace. Again, investors would enjoy improved returns as a result (and small business owners would enjoy enormous flexibility with that huge health care headache taken out of their financial equations.) Even spending on basic scientific research stands to benefit more than just the scientists collecting federal grants. More discoveries in the public domain translate directly into more potential for innovation in business without all the wrangling and litigation that proprietary technologies inevitably require.
I believe the federal government can and should do more to make life better for the average citizen. This is in part because the dominance of know-nothing anarcho-capitalists has produced almost four solid decades of political dereliction when it comes to government action suited to addressing the real problems of the American people. Yet it is also in part because the one theory that actually has produced economic stimulus in reality is Keynesian. Unfocused spending to soften the impact of an economic shock actually works.
Better still, focused spending that simultaneously improves the quality of life for working folks while countering the impact of an economic shock is especially effective. For the people of the United States to get a taste of what adults in other civilized nations have known for generations, we first must shrug off the plague of nonsense that has half our electorate convinced that there is some way our federal government can cut its way to prosperity. There is a good reason the Founding Fathers pushed for a "1 man, 1 vote" system of government. Allowing for obvious corrections like women and non-white men, the principle stands soundly. Yet it continues to serve us poorly when such a large portion of the 80% of Americans shut out from growth under the laissez-faire paradigm get hoodwinked again and again into voting against their own interests.
Regards,
messydom
I'm not suggesting moving it about doesn't matter, I'm suggesting there is always complications.
Raise taxes on the upper classes and politicians get less out of them, wether it's on a local community level or cash support at politicians campaign level.
Raise tax on the middle classes and they bitch about carrying the country.
Raise tax on the lower income and you risk civil war (UK right now) - it's been noticed that there is only noticeable rioting in the UK when the conservatives are in power.
Lower the tax on anyone and they start bitching about how shitty public services are.
As you point out, education and health are the biggest thing to benefit any society long term... but you cut say, the defense budget and oh my god people cry.
The biggest problem I see in the U.S is education, but look at the well intentioned "No Child Left Behind" program. All see personally is a VERY smart and intelligent 11 year old girl held back to the lowest common denominator and relying on a fucking lottery to get her into a decent school in a low income area.
That's a pretty big back fire, and probably the best illustration barring the "Trickle Down Economics" idea which seems to wholly forget the way people get rich is by holding onto way more money than they spend.
I understand their are ways of making things better, what I am suggesting is that broad strokes don't really work, and uneducated people singing broad things like "Raise the tax on the rich" or "All politicians suck" don't understand two things:
A. It's really fucking complicated.
2. There are some very smart people with excellent intentions working in government trying to do the right things. Just because a bunch of politicians always in the news because they are extremists or morally reprehensible doesn't mean the ones you wouldn't recognize in the street aren't good people fighting the idiots.
My own belief is it all starts at the local level. I find it annoying that people will go out and vote for a president, shout about the GOP or the tea party or whatever the group it is to hate this week... but don't even know the name or their mayor. Act local, think global should be everyones mantra. Make your city a better place, and if everyone worked on that the country would grow.
Trickle up politics. That should totally be a thing.
Personally Dom, I am uneducated. I don't pretend to understand politics and it's histories. That's another point - the vast majority of people don't, but they shout about it as if they know all the answers. I understand some broad essentials - enough to make some basic decisions come voting time I know enough to know the tea party is a piece of shit with a basic misunderstanding of reality, and Palin is a misguided publicity seeking fool. I can see Obama is trying to do the right thing but may have just blown it unless he knows something I don't - which is of course quite possible.
I am also aware my ignorance can be dangerous - I don't always vote because i don't always know which way to go.
So, I dunno... it's all a bit complicated and contradictory isn't it?
http://twitter.com/noise17
sploshcouple said:
This is the sort of thing that vexes us . . . that holds us back . . . that literally retards us as a nation. Virtual currency is a very slightly complex idea -- perhaps as difficult as algebra. Yet it has been serving humanity well for over 5,000 years. The exigence that gave rise to the earliest symbolic writing was the need to produce tokens so that debts and credits at the dawn of history could be tracked. It enabled the first public granaries that let farmers bank their product in dry secure facilities. Without those tokens or some other form of writing, the alternatives involved letting harvests rot in the open air or building individual granaries for every farming family in the Fertile Crescent. Symbolic value worked in Mesopotamia, and it works today. That does not mean it is perfect. Just as one can support the right to bear arms without endorsing the killer in the Virginia Tech massacre, one can support a centralized reserve banking system without applauding the most absurd instances of mismanagement.
Dwelling on something like a gold standard does accommodate nice, neat, and simple thinking about economics. What it does not accommodate is any significant availability of credit. In both typical and ideal cases, credit provides a means by which citizens can obtain an advanced education, own a home, or launch a small business without actually having been born rich enough to cover such lofty expenses with cash on hand. 21st century practices and laws in the financial industry approach worst cases. Personal debts are rarely forgiven, lending institutions have access to public capital at virtually 0% interest, and bankers' profits are often taxed at much lower rates than those applied to ordinary median incomes. It is not a bad thing when the state takes action that eases business growth and home ownership. It is a bad thing when this action also makes fortunes atop fortunes for institutional investors without ever attempting to recover any of that wealth generated through opportunities the government is uniquely able to provide.
Ultimately, much of the rabble-rousing that puts dangerous extremists in power comes from this profound ignorance of what the government does right. Sure, the interstate highway system is not without its potholes. A private sector hodgepodge of tollways would also have its potholes, not to mention a host of other issues that would inhibit travel and ultimately impede growth by discouraging people from going out and see parts of the country beyond their immediate locale (not to mention inhibiting long distance trucking.) It is true that there is some freedom in whatever tax reduction might be commensurate with not building an interstate highway system. Yet there is a much more valuable and useful sort of freedom in having the open road be open to all competent drivers. P.J. O'Rourke once observed that libertarians have good ideas, but it is hard to get involved because, "they keep sitting me next to the guy who wants to privatize the sidewalks." We simply ignore the thousands of things government does right because it isn't newsworthy when FEMA actually does provide prompt effective relief to disaster victims or the EPA actually does improve air quality in a region blighted by smog.
Maintaining one of the most stable and strong currencies the world has ever seen is not an epic failure. It is fair to argue that George W. Bush and Alan Greenspan were monstrously stupid to keep driving down interest rates during years of high public confidence in the economy, giving the Federal Reserve no room to maneuver once a woefully underregulated financial industry began to collapse under the weight of its own corruption. Yet it is important to keep in mind -- the government did not demand that Wall Street take crazy risks with securities backed by dubious mortgages. The ratings agencies made a choice to downplay the risk of those vehicles. The investment banks made a choice to load up their portfolios with those toxic assets. The absence of government intervention made all that possible. Voters in a sensible democracy would insist that consumer banks and investment banks do not comingle their pools of capital. Voters in a sensible democracy would insist on regulatory mechanisms with the funding and support to go toe-to-toe with the legions of lawyers financial institutions deploy in defense of their worst misdeeds.
Imagine what a sorry state information technology would be in if we were only permitted to use devices that the average loudmouth with half-baked opinions could understand. Cell phones, broadband routers, and even the humble Commodore 64 would all be banned because yokels would rather trust pen and paper than a bunch of new-fangled gizmotrons. All democracies are impaired by this sort of thinking about government, but here in America the know-nothing yokels are disturbingly loud and proud about their opposition to policies they cannot understand. People don't call for a return to the gold standard because it would generate more prosperity than a system of credit and debt. Demands like that issue forth from voices so ill-informed and thoughtless as to be unable to imagine how value can even exist on a symbolic level. What was easy enough for a Mesopotamian wheat farmer to grasp still somehow eludes the understanding of millions of 21st century Americans.
While it is true that printed currency is a form of government debt, it is not true that the government must remain in the red to have a form of printed currency. After all, the U.S. actually was a creditor nation for a little while in the 20th century, and that didn't prevent people from having cash in their wallets. Like nuclear fuel, currency and credit are simply tools. Used responsibly, they enable economic achievements that barter and full value coinage could never hope to support. Used irresponsibly, they promote the siphoning of wealth out of a general population and into the hands of plutocrats. Blowing up the economy is not a solution to that problem. High end taxation along with public assistance to ordinary citizens in search of education, housing, and employment -- those are real solutions to a real problem that really exists in 21st century America.
The big mental malfunction I see in this clash is the erroneous notion that wealth is generated simply by the force of will of entrepreneurs. Truth be told, the government won't take any of your income if you want to go out into the wilderness and make it all yourself, benefiting only from national defense and perhaps also an education exported into the wild. We all have the freedom to be mountain men or women if we wish. It is when we ship along public roads, transact in public currency, hire publicly educated workers, rely on cops and courts to protect our property rights, and so much more that it is downright dishonest to argue that there should be no support returned to the public sector that makes modern accumulations of wealth possible. If the guns and taxmen of big bad guv'm'nt really are too much for you, then please exercise your freedom to leave for parts less governed. No lawman is stopping you.
The most lawless places on Earth are not homes to rapidly growing corporations as a clueless ideologue like Ayn Rand insisted they should be. They are instead pits of misery where only gangsters and warlords are able to retain much of anything in the way of personal possessions. Civilization actually is a good place to live, and one of the requirements of civilization is a semi-functional government. With any luck, humanity will continue to make progress. However, this progress is impeded in democratic societies each and every time some uninformed ignoramus rants about how horrible it is that people who make the choice to generate personal income must dedicate a percentage of that income to the maintenance of the institutions necessary for that income to exist in the first place. We do have real problems to solve. Those efforts are impaired, presently crippled, by concern about fake problems like "taxation must end now!" or "national debt approaching 1x GDP is unsustainable!" I know most of these people do not actually hate America, but they might as well, for all the harm their input to the political process actually inflicts on themselves and the rest of us.
Regards,
messydom
P.S. As a little footnote, the idea on economic stimulus is not to leave the tap wide open year after year. Just as Dubya was an idiot to keep pushing for lower interest rates in a time of apparent economic stability, it would be foolish to keep spending larger and larger amounts to promote employment in times when unemployment is already very low. In fact, it is during period of maximum employment that government cutbacks are least stupid. Not every public dime is well-spent, and trimming the fat is a less painful process when there are other jobs for the newly unemployed to take. However, making (or even announcing) bold cuts during a period of high unemployment is how you get even higher unemployment and even lower public confidence. It may be that some radical blowhards cannot tell the difference between a policy of state property and a policy of demand-side stimulus, but that does not change the fact that enormous differences exist, nor the fact that demand-side stimulus on a grand scale is the one and only method historical data reveals will serve as a shortcut out of a severe economic slowdown.
"The federal government should be abolished. It is obsolete. It has never done any good for anyone, and has never solved one single problem to any reasonable person's satisfaction. It is a black hole of beaurocracies into which wealth vanishes too often for evil puposes."
"I don't think anyone who knew any history would say this nation is better off now than after the civil war - up to banker created panic of 1907."
"I don't think anyone who knew any history would say this nation is better off now than after the civil war - up to banker created panic of 1907."
This is the sort of thing that vexes us . . . that holds us back . . . that literally retards us as a nation. Virtual currency is a very slightly complex idea -- perhaps as difficult as algebra. Yet it has been serving humanity well for over 5,000 years. The exigence that gave rise to the earliest symbolic writing was the need to produce tokens so that debts and credits at the dawn of history could be tracked. It enabled the first public granaries that let farmers bank their product in dry secure facilities. Without those tokens or some other form of writing, the alternatives involved letting harvests rot in the open air or building individual granaries for every farming family in the Fertile Crescent. Symbolic value worked in Mesopotamia, and it works today. That does not mean it is perfect. Just as one can support the right to bear arms without endorsing the killer in the Virginia Tech massacre, one can support a centralized reserve banking system without applauding the most absurd instances of mismanagement.
Dwelling on something like a gold standard does accommodate nice, neat, and simple thinking about economics. What it does not accommodate is any significant availability of credit. In both typical and ideal cases, credit provides a means by which citizens can obtain an advanced education, own a home, or launch a small business without actually having been born rich enough to cover such lofty expenses with cash on hand. 21st century practices and laws in the financial industry approach worst cases. Personal debts are rarely forgiven, lending institutions have access to public capital at virtually 0% interest, and bankers' profits are often taxed at much lower rates than those applied to ordinary median incomes. It is not a bad thing when the state takes action that eases business growth and home ownership. It is a bad thing when this action also makes fortunes atop fortunes for institutional investors without ever attempting to recover any of that wealth generated through opportunities the government is uniquely able to provide.
Ultimately, much of the rabble-rousing that puts dangerous extremists in power comes from this profound ignorance of what the government does right. Sure, the interstate highway system is not without its potholes. A private sector hodgepodge of tollways would also have its potholes, not to mention a host of other issues that would inhibit travel and ultimately impede growth by discouraging people from going out and see parts of the country beyond their immediate locale (not to mention inhibiting long distance trucking.) It is true that there is some freedom in whatever tax reduction might be commensurate with not building an interstate highway system. Yet there is a much more valuable and useful sort of freedom in having the open road be open to all competent drivers. P.J. O'Rourke once observed that libertarians have good ideas, but it is hard to get involved because, "they keep sitting me next to the guy who wants to privatize the sidewalks." We simply ignore the thousands of things government does right because it isn't newsworthy when FEMA actually does provide prompt effective relief to disaster victims or the EPA actually does improve air quality in a region blighted by smog.
Maintaining one of the most stable and strong currencies the world has ever seen is not an epic failure. It is fair to argue that George W. Bush and Alan Greenspan were monstrously stupid to keep driving down interest rates during years of high public confidence in the economy, giving the Federal Reserve no room to maneuver once a woefully underregulated financial industry began to collapse under the weight of its own corruption. Yet it is important to keep in mind -- the government did not demand that Wall Street take crazy risks with securities backed by dubious mortgages. The ratings agencies made a choice to downplay the risk of those vehicles. The investment banks made a choice to load up their portfolios with those toxic assets. The absence of government intervention made all that possible. Voters in a sensible democracy would insist that consumer banks and investment banks do not comingle their pools of capital. Voters in a sensible democracy would insist on regulatory mechanisms with the funding and support to go toe-to-toe with the legions of lawyers financial institutions deploy in defense of their worst misdeeds.
Imagine what a sorry state information technology would be in if we were only permitted to use devices that the average loudmouth with half-baked opinions could understand. Cell phones, broadband routers, and even the humble Commodore 64 would all be banned because yokels would rather trust pen and paper than a bunch of new-fangled gizmotrons. All democracies are impaired by this sort of thinking about government, but here in America the know-nothing yokels are disturbingly loud and proud about their opposition to policies they cannot understand. People don't call for a return to the gold standard because it would generate more prosperity than a system of credit and debt. Demands like that issue forth from voices so ill-informed and thoughtless as to be unable to imagine how value can even exist on a symbolic level. What was easy enough for a Mesopotamian wheat farmer to grasp still somehow eludes the understanding of millions of 21st century Americans.
While it is true that printed currency is a form of government debt, it is not true that the government must remain in the red to have a form of printed currency. After all, the U.S. actually was a creditor nation for a little while in the 20th century, and that didn't prevent people from having cash in their wallets. Like nuclear fuel, currency and credit are simply tools. Used responsibly, they enable economic achievements that barter and full value coinage could never hope to support. Used irresponsibly, they promote the siphoning of wealth out of a general population and into the hands of plutocrats. Blowing up the economy is not a solution to that problem. High end taxation along with public assistance to ordinary citizens in search of education, housing, and employment -- those are real solutions to a real problem that really exists in 21st century America.
The big mental malfunction I see in this clash is the erroneous notion that wealth is generated simply by the force of will of entrepreneurs. Truth be told, the government won't take any of your income if you want to go out into the wilderness and make it all yourself, benefiting only from national defense and perhaps also an education exported into the wild. We all have the freedom to be mountain men or women if we wish. It is when we ship along public roads, transact in public currency, hire publicly educated workers, rely on cops and courts to protect our property rights, and so much more that it is downright dishonest to argue that there should be no support returned to the public sector that makes modern accumulations of wealth possible. If the guns and taxmen of big bad guv'm'nt really are too much for you, then please exercise your freedom to leave for parts less governed. No lawman is stopping you.
The most lawless places on Earth are not homes to rapidly growing corporations as a clueless ideologue like Ayn Rand insisted they should be. They are instead pits of misery where only gangsters and warlords are able to retain much of anything in the way of personal possessions. Civilization actually is a good place to live, and one of the requirements of civilization is a semi-functional government. With any luck, humanity will continue to make progress. However, this progress is impeded in democratic societies each and every time some uninformed ignoramus rants about how horrible it is that people who make the choice to generate personal income must dedicate a percentage of that income to the maintenance of the institutions necessary for that income to exist in the first place. We do have real problems to solve. Those efforts are impaired, presently crippled, by concern about fake problems like "taxation must end now!" or "national debt approaching 1x GDP is unsustainable!" I know most of these people do not actually hate America, but they might as well, for all the harm their input to the political process actually inflicts on themselves and the rest of us.
Regards,
messydom
P.S. As a little footnote, the idea on economic stimulus is not to leave the tap wide open year after year. Just as Dubya was an idiot to keep pushing for lower interest rates in a time of apparent economic stability, it would be foolish to keep spending larger and larger amounts to promote employment in times when unemployment is already very low. In fact, it is during period of maximum employment that government cutbacks are least stupid. Not every public dime is well-spent, and trimming the fat is a less painful process when there are other jobs for the newly unemployed to take. However, making (or even announcing) bold cuts during a period of high unemployment is how you get even higher unemployment and even lower public confidence. It may be that some radical blowhards cannot tell the difference between a policy of state property and a policy of demand-side stimulus, but that does not change the fact that enormous differences exist, nor the fact that demand-side stimulus on a grand scale is the one and only method historical data reveals will serve as a shortcut out of a severe economic slowdown.
messydom said:
This is the sort of thing that vexes us . . . that holds us back . . . that literally retards us as a nation.
If you're vexed and retarded, its nothing to do with me, amigo.
Virtual currency is a very slightly complex idea -- perhaps as difficult as algebra. Yet it has been serving humanity well for over 5,000 years.
I guess I don't know what you mean when you say virtual currency, do you mean to say currency. If so, I agree that commodity-based (gold) currency has been around for 5000+ years and served its purpose well. I'm drawing a distinction between value-based currency and fiat currency - that's not the same thing as saying we don't need a currency.
Dwelling on something like a gold standard does accommodate nice, neat, and simple thinking about economics. What it does not accommodate is any significant availability of credit.
Not true. In fact completely and totally wrong. Are you saying there was no credit prior to FDR taking the US off the gold standard? I'm pretty sure you know that's preposterous.
In both typical and ideal cases, credit provides a means by which citizens can obtain an advanced education, own a home, or launch a small business without actually having been born rich enough to cover such lofty expenses with cash on hand.
Again, are you saying prior to 1933 no one was educated, owned a home or business - or a smaller percentage of the population fit this description?
Cause I'd like to take that bet. In fact I'll bet you whatever you like in the 120 years or so of this country's history prior to using fiat currency, there was a much greater percentage of the population who were educated, owned homes, and without a doubt owned businesses.
Ultimately, much of the rabble-rousing that puts dangerous extremists in power comes from this profound ignorance of what the government does right. Sure, the interstate highway system is not without its potholes. A private sector hodgepodge of tollways would also have its potholes, not to mention a host of other issues that would inhibit travel and ultimately impede growth by discouraging people from going out and see parts of the country beyond their immediate locale (not to mention inhibiting long distance trucking.) It is true that there is some freedom in whatever tax reduction might be commensurate with not building an interstate highway system.
This is just a complete and total mischaracterization of my position. There are 50 state governments, thousands of county governments, tens of thousands of city and local governments. Getting rid of the bloated criminal federal government doesn't mean we're going to have private sidewalks or some other ridiculous arguement. It means the duties once reserved to the federal government can be accomplished by local governments. Treaties and an interstate court can handle inter state issues. We'll still have roads and sidewalks without a federal government, they just won't cost 4 trillion a year.
Maintaining one of the most stable and strong currencies the world has ever seen is not an epic failure.
I know you aren't talking about federeal reserve notes. Are you? In 98 years they've lost 98% of their worth. Real stable.
Imagine what a sorry state information technology would be in if we were only permitted to use devices that the average loudmouth with half-baked opinions could understand. Cell phones, broadband routers, and even the humble Commodore 64 would all be banned because yokels would rather trust pen and paper than a bunch of new-fangled gizmotrons.
Don't understand what you mean here.
All democracies are impaired by this sort of thinking about government, but here in America the know-nothing yokels are disturbingly loud and proud about their opposition to policies they cannot understand.
Well, there's your main problem. The USA isn't a democracy, its a republic. Huge difference. In a democracy - majority rules. A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
A republic recognizes individuals have inalienable rights from their creator. That means 304 million people can't vote to take away 1 person's rights, property, etc.
People don't call for a return to the gold standard because it would generate more prosperity than a system of credit and debt. Demands like that issue forth from voices so ill-informed and thoughtless as to be unable to imagine how value can even exist on a symbolic level. What was easy enough for a Mesopotamian wheat farmer to grasp still somehow eludes the understanding of millions of 21st century Americans.
No problem, you can have the symbol of wealth and I'll have the wealth.
While it is true that printed currency is a form of government debt, it is not true that the government must remain in the red to have a form of printed currency.
It is true the government must be in debt to use currency borrowed from the Federal Reserve. If you look at the "money" in your wallet, its marked "federal reserve note"
a note is a debt instrument, it must be paid back. But it can't be paid back without returning all currency in circulation in this country. Therefore the debt can never practically be paid back.
After all, the U.S. actually was a creditor nation for a little while in the 20th century, and that didn't prevent people from having cash in their wallets.
?? And it doesn't prevent people from having debt notes in their wallet today. And it doesn't prevent the US from sending foreign aid everywhere to this day. And it doesn't prevent you individually from going to a bank, borrowing money, then loaning or giving it to someone else. - What's the point?
Like nuclear fuel, currency and credit are simply tools. Used responsibly, they enable economic achievements that barter and full value coinage could never hope to support. Used irresponsibly, they promote the siphoning of wealth out of a general population and into the hands of plutocrats. Blowing up the economy is not a solution to that problem.
I agree!
High end taxation along with public assistance to ordinary citizens in search of education, housing, and employment -- those are real solutions to a real problem that really exists in 21st century America.
That's a negative Ghostrider.
Truth be told, the government won't take any of your income if you want to go out into the wilderness and make it all yourself, benefiting only from national defense and perhaps also an education exported into the wild. We all have the freedom to be mountain men or women if we wish.
It is when we ship along public roads, transact in public currency, hire publicly educated workers, rely on cops and courts to protect our property rights, and so much more that it is downright dishonest to argue that there should be no support returned to the public sector that makes modern accumulations of wealth possible.
Never said that. Again this is an important distinction I don't think is complicated. Excise taxes are authorized as well as apportioned direct taxes.
If the guns and taxmen of big bad guv'm'nt really are too much for you, then please exercise your freedom to leave for parts less governed. No lawman is stopping you.
I'm not going anywhere. Sorry. A ligitimate government gets its authority to govern from the consent of its governed. As I articulated above, this is a republic, much to your distain. A basic tenant of law is you cannot transfer better title than you have. Keep up with me cause here comes the cold water. You don't have the authority to go to your neighbors house and take his property at gunpoint. (or not at gunpoint) Therefore you can't delegate that authority, which you don't have, to a government. 305 million people can't vote away the rights of 1 anymore than 1 can vote away the rights of 305 million.
The most lawless places on Earth are not homes to rapidly growing corporations as a clueless ideologue like Ayn Rand insisted they should be. They are instead pits of misery where only gangsters and warlords are able to retain much of anything in the way of personal possessions. Civilization actually is a good place to live, and one of the requirements of civilization is a semi-functional government. With any luck, humanity will continue to make progress. However, this progress is impeded in democratic societies
This isn't a democracy.
each and every time some uninformed ignoramus rants about how horrible it is that people who make the choice to generate personal income must dedicate a percentage of that income to the maintenance of the institutions necessary for that income to exist in the first place. We do have real problems to solve. Those efforts are impaired, presently crippled, by concern about fake problems like "taxation must end now!" or "national debt approaching 1x GDP is unsustainable!" I know most of these people do not actually hate America, but they might as well, for all the harm their input to the political process actually inflicts on themselves and the rest of us.
I'm happy to compare the axiomatic truths of the ideology of freedom I've just articulated and the fabian socialist, keynesian, communist philosophy of yours to the US constitution anyday pal. It ain't me who's leaving - you and PP have China, North Korea, and a plethora of EURO nations to go to with everything you've articulated already in place.
-And no uninformed ignoramouses to hurt you with the truth. Bon Voyage.
This is the sort of thing that vexes us . . . that holds us back . . . that literally retards us as a nation.
If you're vexed and retarded, its nothing to do with me, amigo.
Virtual currency is a very slightly complex idea -- perhaps as difficult as algebra. Yet it has been serving humanity well for over 5,000 years.
I guess I don't know what you mean when you say virtual currency, do you mean to say currency. If so, I agree that commodity-based (gold) currency has been around for 5000+ years and served its purpose well. I'm drawing a distinction between value-based currency and fiat currency - that's not the same thing as saying we don't need a currency.
Dwelling on something like a gold standard does accommodate nice, neat, and simple thinking about economics. What it does not accommodate is any significant availability of credit.
Not true. In fact completely and totally wrong. Are you saying there was no credit prior to FDR taking the US off the gold standard? I'm pretty sure you know that's preposterous.
In both typical and ideal cases, credit provides a means by which citizens can obtain an advanced education, own a home, or launch a small business without actually having been born rich enough to cover such lofty expenses with cash on hand.
Again, are you saying prior to 1933 no one was educated, owned a home or business - or a smaller percentage of the population fit this description?
Cause I'd like to take that bet. In fact I'll bet you whatever you like in the 120 years or so of this country's history prior to using fiat currency, there was a much greater percentage of the population who were educated, owned homes, and without a doubt owned businesses.
Ultimately, much of the rabble-rousing that puts dangerous extremists in power comes from this profound ignorance of what the government does right. Sure, the interstate highway system is not without its potholes. A private sector hodgepodge of tollways would also have its potholes, not to mention a host of other issues that would inhibit travel and ultimately impede growth by discouraging people from going out and see parts of the country beyond their immediate locale (not to mention inhibiting long distance trucking.) It is true that there is some freedom in whatever tax reduction might be commensurate with not building an interstate highway system.
This is just a complete and total mischaracterization of my position. There are 50 state governments, thousands of county governments, tens of thousands of city and local governments. Getting rid of the bloated criminal federal government doesn't mean we're going to have private sidewalks or some other ridiculous arguement. It means the duties once reserved to the federal government can be accomplished by local governments. Treaties and an interstate court can handle inter state issues. We'll still have roads and sidewalks without a federal government, they just won't cost 4 trillion a year.
Maintaining one of the most stable and strong currencies the world has ever seen is not an epic failure.
I know you aren't talking about federeal reserve notes. Are you? In 98 years they've lost 98% of their worth. Real stable.
Imagine what a sorry state information technology would be in if we were only permitted to use devices that the average loudmouth with half-baked opinions could understand. Cell phones, broadband routers, and even the humble Commodore 64 would all be banned because yokels would rather trust pen and paper than a bunch of new-fangled gizmotrons.
Don't understand what you mean here.
All democracies are impaired by this sort of thinking about government, but here in America the know-nothing yokels are disturbingly loud and proud about their opposition to policies they cannot understand.
Well, there's your main problem. The USA isn't a democracy, its a republic. Huge difference. In a democracy - majority rules. A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
A republic recognizes individuals have inalienable rights from their creator. That means 304 million people can't vote to take away 1 person's rights, property, etc.
People don't call for a return to the gold standard because it would generate more prosperity than a system of credit and debt. Demands like that issue forth from voices so ill-informed and thoughtless as to be unable to imagine how value can even exist on a symbolic level. What was easy enough for a Mesopotamian wheat farmer to grasp still somehow eludes the understanding of millions of 21st century Americans.
No problem, you can have the symbol of wealth and I'll have the wealth.
While it is true that printed currency is a form of government debt, it is not true that the government must remain in the red to have a form of printed currency.
It is true the government must be in debt to use currency borrowed from the Federal Reserve. If you look at the "money" in your wallet, its marked "federal reserve note"
a note is a debt instrument, it must be paid back. But it can't be paid back without returning all currency in circulation in this country. Therefore the debt can never practically be paid back.
After all, the U.S. actually was a creditor nation for a little while in the 20th century, and that didn't prevent people from having cash in their wallets.
?? And it doesn't prevent people from having debt notes in their wallet today. And it doesn't prevent the US from sending foreign aid everywhere to this day. And it doesn't prevent you individually from going to a bank, borrowing money, then loaning or giving it to someone else. - What's the point?
Like nuclear fuel, currency and credit are simply tools. Used responsibly, they enable economic achievements that barter and full value coinage could never hope to support. Used irresponsibly, they promote the siphoning of wealth out of a general population and into the hands of plutocrats. Blowing up the economy is not a solution to that problem.
I agree!
High end taxation along with public assistance to ordinary citizens in search of education, housing, and employment -- those are real solutions to a real problem that really exists in 21st century America.
That's a negative Ghostrider.
Truth be told, the government won't take any of your income if you want to go out into the wilderness and make it all yourself, benefiting only from national defense and perhaps also an education exported into the wild. We all have the freedom to be mountain men or women if we wish.
It is when we ship along public roads, transact in public currency, hire publicly educated workers, rely on cops and courts to protect our property rights, and so much more that it is downright dishonest to argue that there should be no support returned to the public sector that makes modern accumulations of wealth possible.
Never said that. Again this is an important distinction I don't think is complicated. Excise taxes are authorized as well as apportioned direct taxes.
If the guns and taxmen of big bad guv'm'nt really are too much for you, then please exercise your freedom to leave for parts less governed. No lawman is stopping you.
I'm not going anywhere. Sorry. A ligitimate government gets its authority to govern from the consent of its governed. As I articulated above, this is a republic, much to your distain. A basic tenant of law is you cannot transfer better title than you have. Keep up with me cause here comes the cold water. You don't have the authority to go to your neighbors house and take his property at gunpoint. (or not at gunpoint) Therefore you can't delegate that authority, which you don't have, to a government. 305 million people can't vote away the rights of 1 anymore than 1 can vote away the rights of 305 million.
The most lawless places on Earth are not homes to rapidly growing corporations as a clueless ideologue like Ayn Rand insisted they should be. They are instead pits of misery where only gangsters and warlords are able to retain much of anything in the way of personal possessions. Civilization actually is a good place to live, and one of the requirements of civilization is a semi-functional government. With any luck, humanity will continue to make progress. However, this progress is impeded in democratic societies
This isn't a democracy.
each and every time some uninformed ignoramus rants about how horrible it is that people who make the choice to generate personal income must dedicate a percentage of that income to the maintenance of the institutions necessary for that income to exist in the first place. We do have real problems to solve. Those efforts are impaired, presently crippled, by concern about fake problems like "taxation must end now!" or "national debt approaching 1x GDP is unsustainable!" I know most of these people do not actually hate America, but they might as well, for all the harm their input to the political process actually inflicts on themselves and the rest of us.
I'm happy to compare the axiomatic truths of the ideology of freedom I've just articulated and the fabian socialist, keynesian, communist philosophy of yours to the US constitution anyday pal. It ain't me who's leaving - you and PP have China, North Korea, and a plethora of EURO nations to go to with everything you've articulated already in place.
-And no uninformed ignoramouses to hurt you with the truth. Bon Voyage.
Please keep in mind with these ravings that it is unlikely more than one or two other readers have actually indulged in your particular brand of Kool-Aid. There is nothing about the Constitution or the concept of a republic that prevents the implementation of an income tax. To the contrary, if elected representatives legislate such a thing, the democratic and republican thing to do with such legislation is act on it. Even forcing young men to go to war against their will is still within the realm of possibility for a self-governing society if voters and elected officials decide that is the path to take. Down in the survivalist bunker, it may generate nods of approval to pretend as if there was something illegitimate about American income tax. Out in the real world, it happens to be a valid and viable way to fund collective actions that make the difference between an anarchy where no honest labor generates wealth and a stable society where the world's greatest fortunes can be, and have been, forged.
Of course, an unlimited ability to get rich is not the same thing as meaningful freedom. As noted earlier in the thread, the Dutch and the Swiss and the French and the Swedes and so many other peoples have the opportunity to become wealthy. With good product and good management, their businesses grow and prosper. Someone willing to take on a second job will have more income than he or she would without that extra effort. Capitalism is not some fragile flower that wilts the moment one implements socialized medicine or a national minimum income. It is not some ridiculous cult that must constantly purge itself of even the slightest impurity. The useful components of capitalism thrive right alongside the useful components of socialism. The end result is a society where materialistic citizens may make an extra effort for extra income, as opposed to the train wreck we presently inhabit, where ordinary citizens must make an extra effort for ordinary income.
Ultimately we do have a choices. We do not enjoy the ease of the Western European lifestyle for lack of wealth or opportunity. Individually, we do not tend to be less productive or less intelligent, and we certainly are not short on resources. What we lack is the integrity as a people to shun the deceivers and lunatics who denounce hope itself in favor of an agenda that blends some of the worst elements of anarchy with some of the worst elements of oligarchy. Obsessing over the freedom not to endure a tax on income produces political results that fail to allow honest workers to participate in whatever gains our economy makes, even as those same results insist that working families take the worst of the setbacks our economy endures.
The same is true of this nonsense about federalism. There has always been some ambiguity on the matter of "states' rights." The Civil War was as much about the ability of the states to defy the federal government as it was about any other single issue. For the grown-ups in the room, the conflict is settled. For one, states simply lack the means to mount much defiance in modernity. For another, civil wars are stupid wastes of precious resources, human life foremost among those. Wyoming and Massachusettes are both home to sick people. While there may be subtle nuances owing to the presence or lack of cities, ultimately whether or not cancer patients ought be compelled to sink into poverty to get lifesaving medicine or not is a question with the same answer in Wyoming and Masschusettes and the planet Mars. Many issues are legitimately national, the Founding Fathers created a legitimate method for passing national legislation, and there is nothing criminal about the fact that some of this legislation may be an imperfect compromise that creates institutions or even taxes that some individuals personally oppose.
There are many factors involved in progress made since the election of FDR. Greater availability of credit and the rise of stimulus responses to economic downturns are significant among them. In 1933, even a bachelors' degree was a very rare thing, and home ownership was most commonly a result of moving away from established cities and personally building a home for your family. Our nation took a global leadership position in realms like quality of life and educational attainment in large part through grant programs and credit subsidies. Not only did this bring home ownership up from 1:2 families to more like 2:3 families, but it much facilitated arrangements where professional builders could make the process more efficient. Across the same interval, 4-year degrees went from extremely rare to an outcome more than 1:4 American adults would achieve. It is not that people dealing in gold coins or even trading in goats could never build a house or even study among real experts, but is clearly is the case that primitive means of exchange facilitate such commerce less well than modern means of exchange.
Even gold is only valuable because of a social phenomenon. It carries value because of a common agreement that it is valuable. Plenty of substances are comparably rare. Some of those are even better conductors of electricity. The value gold has is the value people give it by common agreement. The fact that we may instead come to a common agreement that documents or even bits of data have value is actually not that much more mysterious. It may be less shiny, but I hope we could all try to do better as the basis for an economy than "ooh! Shiny -- me like!" As an added bonus, fiat currency means gold tied up in reserves can instead be let loose into the market for the wearing and computing desires of human beings.
As an aside on that whole "government doesn't have the right to take" nonsense -- income is by definition money that is being earned. Excise taxes and income taxes both occur on transactions. Collecting a paycheck is not some divinely ordained magic that transcends the logic of a merchant collecting payment for the sale of goods or services. In both cases the payment is due, but in both cases the payment cannot be made before it has been made. Income taxes, like excise taxes, do not actually take money from payment recipients. They instead take money from the transaction that eventually results in some receipt of funds. Of course, there would be nothing unconstitutional about an outright confiscatory tax if it were duly legislated. It is simply that confiscated a percentage of extant wealth is both more harmful and harder to accomplish than collecting a percentage of funds involved in a transaction. The idea that a paycheck is somehow sacred in a way that payment for sold goods is not is both untrue and irrelevant. It is typically raised by proponents of more regressive approaches to taxation -- hardly a smart move for a society where purchasing power outside the uppermost quintile has already been stagnant for decades.
Regards,
messydom
Of course, an unlimited ability to get rich is not the same thing as meaningful freedom. As noted earlier in the thread, the Dutch and the Swiss and the French and the Swedes and so many other peoples have the opportunity to become wealthy. With good product and good management, their businesses grow and prosper. Someone willing to take on a second job will have more income than he or she would without that extra effort. Capitalism is not some fragile flower that wilts the moment one implements socialized medicine or a national minimum income. It is not some ridiculous cult that must constantly purge itself of even the slightest impurity. The useful components of capitalism thrive right alongside the useful components of socialism. The end result is a society where materialistic citizens may make an extra effort for extra income, as opposed to the train wreck we presently inhabit, where ordinary citizens must make an extra effort for ordinary income.
Ultimately we do have a choices. We do not enjoy the ease of the Western European lifestyle for lack of wealth or opportunity. Individually, we do not tend to be less productive or less intelligent, and we certainly are not short on resources. What we lack is the integrity as a people to shun the deceivers and lunatics who denounce hope itself in favor of an agenda that blends some of the worst elements of anarchy with some of the worst elements of oligarchy. Obsessing over the freedom not to endure a tax on income produces political results that fail to allow honest workers to participate in whatever gains our economy makes, even as those same results insist that working families take the worst of the setbacks our economy endures.
The same is true of this nonsense about federalism. There has always been some ambiguity on the matter of "states' rights." The Civil War was as much about the ability of the states to defy the federal government as it was about any other single issue. For the grown-ups in the room, the conflict is settled. For one, states simply lack the means to mount much defiance in modernity. For another, civil wars are stupid wastes of precious resources, human life foremost among those. Wyoming and Massachusettes are both home to sick people. While there may be subtle nuances owing to the presence or lack of cities, ultimately whether or not cancer patients ought be compelled to sink into poverty to get lifesaving medicine or not is a question with the same answer in Wyoming and Masschusettes and the planet Mars. Many issues are legitimately national, the Founding Fathers created a legitimate method for passing national legislation, and there is nothing criminal about the fact that some of this legislation may be an imperfect compromise that creates institutions or even taxes that some individuals personally oppose.
There are many factors involved in progress made since the election of FDR. Greater availability of credit and the rise of stimulus responses to economic downturns are significant among them. In 1933, even a bachelors' degree was a very rare thing, and home ownership was most commonly a result of moving away from established cities and personally building a home for your family. Our nation took a global leadership position in realms like quality of life and educational attainment in large part through grant programs and credit subsidies. Not only did this bring home ownership up from 1:2 families to more like 2:3 families, but it much facilitated arrangements where professional builders could make the process more efficient. Across the same interval, 4-year degrees went from extremely rare to an outcome more than 1:4 American adults would achieve. It is not that people dealing in gold coins or even trading in goats could never build a house or even study among real experts, but is clearly is the case that primitive means of exchange facilitate such commerce less well than modern means of exchange.
Even gold is only valuable because of a social phenomenon. It carries value because of a common agreement that it is valuable. Plenty of substances are comparably rare. Some of those are even better conductors of electricity. The value gold has is the value people give it by common agreement. The fact that we may instead come to a common agreement that documents or even bits of data have value is actually not that much more mysterious. It may be less shiny, but I hope we could all try to do better as the basis for an economy than "ooh! Shiny -- me like!" As an added bonus, fiat currency means gold tied up in reserves can instead be let loose into the market for the wearing and computing desires of human beings.
As an aside on that whole "government doesn't have the right to take" nonsense -- income is by definition money that is being earned. Excise taxes and income taxes both occur on transactions. Collecting a paycheck is not some divinely ordained magic that transcends the logic of a merchant collecting payment for the sale of goods or services. In both cases the payment is due, but in both cases the payment cannot be made before it has been made. Income taxes, like excise taxes, do not actually take money from payment recipients. They instead take money from the transaction that eventually results in some receipt of funds. Of course, there would be nothing unconstitutional about an outright confiscatory tax if it were duly legislated. It is simply that confiscated a percentage of extant wealth is both more harmful and harder to accomplish than collecting a percentage of funds involved in a transaction. The idea that a paycheck is somehow sacred in a way that payment for sold goods is not is both untrue and irrelevant. It is typically raised by proponents of more regressive approaches to taxation -- hardly a smart move for a society where purchasing power outside the uppermost quintile has already been stagnant for decades.
Regards,
messydom
messydom said: Please keep in mind with these ravings that it is unlikely more than one or two other readers have actually indulged in your particular brand of Kool-Aid. There is nothing about the Constitution or the concept of a republic that prevents the implementation of an income tax.
Wrong. Quite wrong once again. I'm not even going to read the rest of your novel, because your basic premise is already flawed. I'll wait for it to be made into a mini-series by Karl Marx productions.
A direct income tax, being immoral and impossible to legally apply is the only thing prohibited in the constitution TWICE.
Its prohibited in Article I section 2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
and again in Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This should probably be pretty obvious from the 16th amendment, but something tells me you earned the same DR. of constitutionality Barry did.
It must be difficult for you to tolerate all the rantings of the ignorant people who are not nearly as smart and "educated" as yourself.
Wrong. Quite wrong once again. I'm not even going to read the rest of your novel, because your basic premise is already flawed. I'll wait for it to be made into a mini-series by Karl Marx productions.
A direct income tax, being immoral and impossible to legally apply is the only thing prohibited in the constitution TWICE.
Its prohibited in Article I section 2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
and again in Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This should probably be pretty obvious from the 16th amendment, but something tells me you earned the same DR. of constitutionality Barry did.
It must be difficult for you to tolerate all the rantings of the ignorant people who are not nearly as smart and "educated" as yourself.
Fuck, and no one important has noticed income tax is illegal!
So let me get this straight... are you suggesting progressive taxation, one of the most important economic breakthroughs since the creation of zero, is a bad idea?
Maybe I agree with you in total, thinking about it, a return to the barter system would make life simple.
I could farm some chickens.
So let me get this straight... are you suggesting progressive taxation, one of the most important economic breakthroughs since the creation of zero, is a bad idea?
Maybe I agree with you in total, thinking about it, a return to the barter system would make life simple.
I could farm some chickens.
http://twitter.com/noise17
noise said: Fuck, and no one important has noticed income tax is illegal!
So let me get this straight... are you suggesting progressive taxation, one of the most important economic breakthroughs since the creation of zero, is a bad idea?
So let me get this straight... are you suggesting progressive taxation, one of the most important economic breakthroughs since the creation of zero, is a bad idea?
I'm suggesting that its a different form of government. And, in fact, its the second plank of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO!
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
You'll notice the first plank eliminates private property, because the second would be a crime without the first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
For reasons I'm sick of repeating, it is incompatible with freedom, and incompatible with a republic. News Flash ~ (Which is what this is)~
My problem with it is that the US constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government.
Article IV section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
That doesn't mean the republican party, Jack. That is a statutory recognition that this is a republic. Not a democracy, not a communism, not any other sort of dictatorship. Well, both laws can't co-exist. The existence of one is the negation of the other.
My problem is dumb asses telling me I'm ignorant when they don't know shit, and trying to turn the last country on earth into the same toilet as the rest of the world. There are lots of communist nations - just go live there.
You guys just get off on WAM or do you like being smacked around and owned and humiliated like this too?
This is one of the problems with truly insane people talking about politics. In the mind of the person behind the sploshcouple moniker, he is making perfect sense and I am raving in ways that are at odds with reality. That is because in his world, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, and so much more are all meaningless in the context of a society where people have to pay income taxes. He imagines, without any regard for the truth on the subject, that every single tax cheat in the nation is just one heartbeat away from a Ruby Ridge disaster. In his head, even Ronald Reagan was a tyrant, being a guy who not only endorsed the collection of income taxes but also advocated for the closure of loopholes and an outright ban on the sort of single-taxpayer legislation that provides specific breaks to specific companies.
This is, of course, not the reality the rest of us inhabit. If sploshcouple could shrug off his delusions, he would discover it is not even the world he inhabits. The Constitution is a document subject to amendment. The Founding Fathers understood that it was imperfect even in its own time and that it would become more flaws as times changed and the document failed to keep pace. They created a mechanism by which changes in the document were possible. So it is that the 16th Amendment, no differently than the Bill of Rights, was ratified and became part of our national charter document. To declare income tax unconstitutional is to declare a part of the Constitution itself unconstitutional. It is unsurprising that every judge ever to rule on the matter has sided with the Constitution and against the ravings of tax dodgers disguising their personal weaknesses as a stand on principle.
Speaking of personal weaknesses, I realize that education levels vary, but I would hope anyone who chooses to speak up in a discussion like this did at least pass the 8th grade. You see, it is in the 8th grade that students since long before my time are required to pass a test on the Constitution and a few other elementary aspects of government. For example, every 8th grader is going to miss a test question or two if her or she slept through the lesson and skipped over the reading where it is established that a republic is a form of democracy. "Direct democracy" is the correct term for rule by popular vote on all important issues. "Democracy" is a broader term that applies to all forms of government where voting by the general public is the basis for political outcomes. It is a factual statement to say, "all republics are democracies." It may be that many teenagers forget this days after they learn it, but they are tested on it. It is a shame people rush to the polls year after year in this nation without caring enough about America to be as well-informed as an 8th grader.
This same criticism applies to the nonsense about income taxes being in conflict with a republican form of government. Anyone who gets at least a C in 8th grade social studies should recall "the elastic clause" from among the information briefly learned for testing purposes. It is one of the more important aspects of our government, and one of the more interesting. The idea of a constitutional government was itself novel in the late 18th century, but especially innovative was this understanding that the work of the Constitutional Convention would need to adapt with the times if it was to survive changes that surely would occur over the course of centuries. sploshcouple seems to be suggesting that the language of the constitution forbids amendment, at least to the extent any amendment authorizes taxation that a single citizen objects to. It is simply wrong to read that "whole Number of free persons" language as a call for national unanimity on taxation. The idea is "everyone gets a vote" not "everyone gets a veto." Majority rule, be it in a direct democracy or a republic, is the applicable doctrine.
Simply put, income tax is does not require state property, it is not communist, it is Constitutional, and it has harmoniously coexisted alongside important freedoms in dozens of societies for several generations. A person who cannot see that is dangerous, but only to the extent such lack of vision is accepted as insight rather than rejected as unworthy even of any middle school graduate. I would hope no one else here is foolish enough to imagine these anti-tax ravings are a sign of anything other than a clear break from reality. Such broken thoughts are the last thing we need as those of us willing to face reality struggle to deal with the real problems that our nation must overcome if we are ever to enjoy real progress in the future.
Regards,
messydom
This is, of course, not the reality the rest of us inhabit. If sploshcouple could shrug off his delusions, he would discover it is not even the world he inhabits. The Constitution is a document subject to amendment. The Founding Fathers understood that it was imperfect even in its own time and that it would become more flaws as times changed and the document failed to keep pace. They created a mechanism by which changes in the document were possible. So it is that the 16th Amendment, no differently than the Bill of Rights, was ratified and became part of our national charter document. To declare income tax unconstitutional is to declare a part of the Constitution itself unconstitutional. It is unsurprising that every judge ever to rule on the matter has sided with the Constitution and against the ravings of tax dodgers disguising their personal weaknesses as a stand on principle.
Speaking of personal weaknesses, I realize that education levels vary, but I would hope anyone who chooses to speak up in a discussion like this did at least pass the 8th grade. You see, it is in the 8th grade that students since long before my time are required to pass a test on the Constitution and a few other elementary aspects of government. For example, every 8th grader is going to miss a test question or two if her or she slept through the lesson and skipped over the reading where it is established that a republic is a form of democracy. "Direct democracy" is the correct term for rule by popular vote on all important issues. "Democracy" is a broader term that applies to all forms of government where voting by the general public is the basis for political outcomes. It is a factual statement to say, "all republics are democracies." It may be that many teenagers forget this days after they learn it, but they are tested on it. It is a shame people rush to the polls year after year in this nation without caring enough about America to be as well-informed as an 8th grader.
This same criticism applies to the nonsense about income taxes being in conflict with a republican form of government. Anyone who gets at least a C in 8th grade social studies should recall "the elastic clause" from among the information briefly learned for testing purposes. It is one of the more important aspects of our government, and one of the more interesting. The idea of a constitutional government was itself novel in the late 18th century, but especially innovative was this understanding that the work of the Constitutional Convention would need to adapt with the times if it was to survive changes that surely would occur over the course of centuries. sploshcouple seems to be suggesting that the language of the constitution forbids amendment, at least to the extent any amendment authorizes taxation that a single citizen objects to. It is simply wrong to read that "whole Number of free persons" language as a call for national unanimity on taxation. The idea is "everyone gets a vote" not "everyone gets a veto." Majority rule, be it in a direct democracy or a republic, is the applicable doctrine.
Simply put, income tax is does not require state property, it is not communist, it is Constitutional, and it has harmoniously coexisted alongside important freedoms in dozens of societies for several generations. A person who cannot see that is dangerous, but only to the extent such lack of vision is accepted as insight rather than rejected as unworthy even of any middle school graduate. I would hope no one else here is foolish enough to imagine these anti-tax ravings are a sign of anything other than a clear break from reality. Such broken thoughts are the last thing we need as those of us willing to face reality struggle to deal with the real problems that our nation must overcome if we are ever to enjoy real progress in the future.
Regards,
messydom
messydom said: This is one of the problems with truly insane people talking about politics.
This is the trouble with debating megalomaniacs traversing the internet in a zepplin of arrogance. They can have everything they say torn apart and shown to them how factually inaccurate it is, and it does no good.
My hand is sore from slapping you, exposing you, and I doubt anyone is reading my posts, much less yours. Since you use 50 words when 1 will do ( I guess you like the sound of your own voice) For the sake of anyone trying to follow this with an open mind I'll shred your BS and rub it in your face one last time. Your pontification is heavy on opinion and baseless, nonsensical accusations, and not surprisingly short on history and statutory basis. Let me distill your last volumes down to this :
A republic and a democracy are the same.
No they aren't. Wrong again. You can benefit from this video. I gotta go to 6th period history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJTfwbI6lKI
Next time just make your left turn into wild accusation and personal attack before you crash into the brick wall. If you have no credability - the last play left is to try and take the person's who has shown your ass to the world I guess.
well it seems pretty obvious Messydom wins this round. Good job MD. I guess your debate opponents will need to rush to Michelle bachmanns website to get more answers.... OMG LOL.
cant wait to see the GOP tickt of Perry/Bachmann get owned as hard as you are maiming these rightwingers!!! Obama is going to destroy in 2012 and trust me, the next four years things will come together! sploshcouple, please for your own sake you must stop posting.
cant wait to see the GOP tickt of Perry/Bachmann get owned as hard as you are maiming these rightwingers!!! Obama is going to destroy in 2012 and trust me, the next four years things will come together! sploshcouple, please for your own sake you must stop posting.
The fact that a ridiculous man can post a link to a ridiculous video does not suddenly rewrite generations of thinking on politics. Putting Nazis and communists in the same basket is completely nonsensical. Anyone with even a passing awareness of what went on in Germany during the rise of the Nazi Party understands that it was a clash between the far-right authoritarians against the far-left communists. Both sides employed a range of underhanded tactics, but in the end the German people were more afraid of the communists than the nationalists, so the Nazi Party (which was no more socialist than George W. Bush's conservatism was "compassionate") won elections. The moment you know that video is a load of garbage is when it suggests that "far-right" equates with a government having no power. To equate anarchists with the political right wing is pure nonsense. Hiring a decent narrator and presenting decent graphics does not unmuddle what is a laughably misleading presentation.
Though 8th grade is where non-stupid Americans should pick up on the understanding that republics are a subset of democracies, the lesson is repeated often enough in high school and any respectable collegiate level study of political science. I'll type slowly now so sploshcouple can follow along . . . all republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics. A democracy is any system of government where power ultimately derives from elections with widespread participation from the general public. A republic is a type of democracy where democratic elections designate representatives who then go on to pass actual legislation. This distinguishes republics from direct democracies where the law of the land is shaped chiefly through referenda.
This is not bullshit. It is the way things actually are. What stuns me is that a grown man can be so gullible as to get sucked in to an alternate reality, then have such a severe personality defect as to confuse spouting nonsense to what I will concede is likely a nearly empty room at this point, then trumpet such victories as occur only inside his head. sploshcouple must know that no court has ever sided with his bizarre view of the Constitution's explicit authorization of income tax as unconstitutional. Were he not so profoundly deranged, I would assume he would also know that fascism is traditionally a constituent of the far-right while anarchists are traditionally considered leftists. However, that is nuanced enough that a middle schooler might not follow along, so I can certainly see how someone so much less astute than a ten year old would do no better.
The simple truth here is that we live in a society that is both a democracy and a republic, a federal income tax is Constitutional, and income taxes serve as a viable way to fund whatever actions the government is authorized to take by way of legislation passed by duly elected members of Congress and signed by the President (or passed by a large enough supermajority to overrides the Presidential veto.) sploshcouple can go on and on about his sore hand if he likes, but all this slapping is purely the product of his delusions. Our here in reality, the nation has real problems to overcome. Adjustments to tax policy deserve consideration as these problems are addressed. Nonsense about Constitutional challenges to law so well-established or about republics not being a democratic form of government only waste time while flaunting idiocy. How is this in any way helpful?
Regards,
messydom
P.S. I'm sorry if my posts are too difficult for some to consume. My writing tends to parse out at the 9th grade level on reading ease scales. A person of normal cognitive function should only require a few minutes to get through even the lengthiest of my posts. I realize in the era of twits and Twitter, many subjects are thought to merit only a brief grunt of language. Personally, I believe civics are degraded when dumbed down to such extremes of brevity. Still, it is not with any malice that I risk some strain to the faculties of whatever readers remain. It is simply the case that precision is required to avoid descending back to the level of grunts and slogans that are the driving force behind movements like the Tea Party.
Though 8th grade is where non-stupid Americans should pick up on the understanding that republics are a subset of democracies, the lesson is repeated often enough in high school and any respectable collegiate level study of political science. I'll type slowly now so sploshcouple can follow along . . . all republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics. A democracy is any system of government where power ultimately derives from elections with widespread participation from the general public. A republic is a type of democracy where democratic elections designate representatives who then go on to pass actual legislation. This distinguishes republics from direct democracies where the law of the land is shaped chiefly through referenda.
This is not bullshit. It is the way things actually are. What stuns me is that a grown man can be so gullible as to get sucked in to an alternate reality, then have such a severe personality defect as to confuse spouting nonsense to what I will concede is likely a nearly empty room at this point, then trumpet such victories as occur only inside his head. sploshcouple must know that no court has ever sided with his bizarre view of the Constitution's explicit authorization of income tax as unconstitutional. Were he not so profoundly deranged, I would assume he would also know that fascism is traditionally a constituent of the far-right while anarchists are traditionally considered leftists. However, that is nuanced enough that a middle schooler might not follow along, so I can certainly see how someone so much less astute than a ten year old would do no better.
The simple truth here is that we live in a society that is both a democracy and a republic, a federal income tax is Constitutional, and income taxes serve as a viable way to fund whatever actions the government is authorized to take by way of legislation passed by duly elected members of Congress and signed by the President (or passed by a large enough supermajority to overrides the Presidential veto.) sploshcouple can go on and on about his sore hand if he likes, but all this slapping is purely the product of his delusions. Our here in reality, the nation has real problems to overcome. Adjustments to tax policy deserve consideration as these problems are addressed. Nonsense about Constitutional challenges to law so well-established or about republics not being a democratic form of government only waste time while flaunting idiocy. How is this in any way helpful?
Regards,
messydom
P.S. I'm sorry if my posts are too difficult for some to consume. My writing tends to parse out at the 9th grade level on reading ease scales. A person of normal cognitive function should only require a few minutes to get through even the lengthiest of my posts. I realize in the era of twits and Twitter, many subjects are thought to merit only a brief grunt of language. Personally, I believe civics are degraded when dumbed down to such extremes of brevity. Still, it is not with any malice that I risk some strain to the faculties of whatever readers remain. It is simply the case that precision is required to avoid descending back to the level of grunts and slogans that are the driving force behind movements like the Tea Party.
sploshcouple said:
My problem is dumb asses telling me I'm ignorant when they don't know shit, and trying to turn the last country on earth into the same toilet as the rest of the world. There are lots of communist nations - just go live there.
My problem is dumb asses telling me I'm ignorant when they don't know shit, and trying to turn the last country on earth into the same toilet as the rest of the world. There are lots of communist nations - just go live there.
... and that's my issue with so many Americans. The assumption America is better than the rest of the world.
Here's a newsflash - it isn't and it never was.
I've lived in a few countries, I'm English and I now reside in the U.S. If you want a list of better countries to live in I would start of by knocking on Belgium's door. Canada is pretty much America without the bullshit.
I lived in Switzerland for a while, and Holy Shit they have it down. Low poverty and crime and everyone is pretty much happy.
America is alright, it has a lot of good things going on. A LOT. But really, it always has had really big issues.
Ignorance and arrogance. The two put together are terrifying.
Then there is the communist bullshit, it is always the last grain... the communism straw man argument. "You don't agree with me, therefore you must be a communist".
It's bullshit, it's a straw man argument.
If you want to smack people around and humiliate them on the internet, then better tactics than the straw man are needed. Rational sense is a good start.
http://twitter.com/noise17
It can't be easy to live in a world where everyone is crazy but you. You better go give Forbes an education like you gave me. They're crazy too.
Fiat Money: The Root Cause Of Our Financial Disaster
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2011/08/15/fiat-money-the-root-cause-of-our-financial-disaster/
Fiat Money: The Root Cause Of Our Financial Disaster
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2011/08/15/fiat-money-the-root-cause-of-our-financial-disaster/
sploshcouple said: It can't be easy to live in a world where everyone is crazy but you.
sploshcouple said:
My problem is dumb asses telling me I'm ignorant when they don't know shit, .
My problem is dumb asses telling me I'm ignorant when they don't know shit, .
See what i did there?
Of course everything is fucked up. That's why i look out the window I see foreclosed house, and I call my friends back home and they are watching riots.
Who caused the whole fucked up thing? Banks lending too easy, and ignorant arrogant Americans buying houses they can't afford assuming the house will grow in value.
I'm just not so sure progressive taxation is to blame. Or are we discussing something else? Want to throw another straw man in the mix?
http://twitter.com/noise17
noise said:
I'm just not so sure progressive taxation is to blame. Or are we discussing something else? Want to throw another straw man in the mix?
sploshcouple said: It can't be easy to live in a world where everyone is crazy but you.
sploshcouple said:
My problem is dumb asses telling me I'm ignorant when they don't know shit, .
My problem is dumb asses telling me I'm ignorant when they don't know shit, .
I'm just not so sure progressive taxation is to blame. Or are we discussing something else? Want to throw another straw man in the mix?
1) The last reply was directed to Dom not you.
2) I missed the first straw man, and I don't think you know what that means.
3) I don't know how much closer I can get the dots so that you can put them together.
Keynsianism is central planning of an economy. Central planning is the communist philosophy. A progressive income tax is the number 2 plank in establishing a communist form of government.
The 16th Amendment was passed in 1913, the same year as the Federal Reserve act. That is because the citizens' labor is the collateral for the debt based money that can never be repaid. The money collected from income taxes first and foremost goes to service the debt to the private Federal Reserve. Demanding that tax must be paid in Federal Reserve notes also creates a demand for a fiat currency which would otherwise probably be much less popular.
Americans were turned into debt slaves that year, and are slaves to this day. The debt can never be repaid so they'll be slaves in perpetutiy.
They aren't different problems, they are part and parcel of the same problem.
And this nation was better than other nations once. It isn't today. That's not because freedom failed, its because it was abandoned for the promise of security.
And I don't remember inviting you so ya know...don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
sploshcouple said:
2) I missed the first straw man, and I don't think you know what that means.
2) I missed the first straw man, and I don't think you know what that means.
sploshcouple said:
Keynsianism is central planning of an economy. Central planning is the communist philosophy. A progressive income tax is the number 2 plank in establishing a communist form of government.
Keynsianism is central planning of an economy. Central planning is the communist philosophy. A progressive income tax is the number 2 plank in establishing a communist form of government.
Apparently you didn't, and yes I do.
And this nation was better than other nations once. It isn't today. That's not because freedom failed, its because it was abandoned for the promise of security.
Would love to see your empirical data on that first statement. Or are you now just talking about "some" or "most' rather than all nations?
Second statement... yeah, to a fair degree it's obvious in the name of national security a lot of rights are being abused. That's more a failing of people allowing it to happen than a failure of government structure. No government structure will ever be perfect, anyone telling you otherwise is a fool.
And I don't remember inviting you so ya know...don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Arrogant and ignorant. It's a theme.
I was brought here by request of people ever so much more important than you, and by the authority of the people, for the people.
http://twitter.com/noise17
To begin with, of course Forbes magazine tends toward the crazy. Malcolm Forbes was a great man who put together a great publication. Steve Forbes is a mental defective who has done nothing more noble in his life than to stop running himself for the Republican Presidential nomination at every opportunity. Forbes was among those publications to herald the great achievements of Wall Street at precisely the time when those "great achievements" were threatening the very existence of gargantuan investment houses -- achievements that would ultimately lead to a government bailout of the most overpaid and least deserving participants in the American economy. Heck, the previous editorial by the author of that fiat currency ramble was a piece on how Eric Cantor was a "hero" for pushing so hard toward a default on the national debt. The percentage of Americans able to view such disastrous politicking as "heroic" must be smaller than the percentage who believe the Sun moves around the Earth.
Yet I should not pick on modern geocentrists. As ignorant as they may be about the heavens, not a one of them is arrogant enough to seek work as an astronomer. Some of them may well be competent at their professions, decent in their personal lives, and generally positive forces in the world. The same cannot be said for American voters who make harbor fundamental errors of fact about American politics. All too often, a citizen will loudly and proudly promote views which are at odds with the facts. Anchored in an alternate reality, sustained by a panorama of deliberately misleading media, these individuals obstruct realistic discourse while lending their support to public figures that range from the laughably deranged to the dangerously misguided.
The obnoxious half of sploshcouple will not let us overlook this phenomenon. To hear him tell it, there must be a grand conspiracy between myself and the publishers of English language dictionaries. After all, they join me in daring to suggest that "democracy" is a term applicable to government by elected representatives. Clearly it cannot be that he took his guidance from a bit of obvious propaganda posted on YouTube. It could only be the case that the mainstream media, textbook publishers, lexicographers, pundits, and even elected officials including all modern Presidents have all been horribly abusing the term "democracy" so that in the summer of 2011 this one noble warrior for truth and justice would be thwarted in his quest to show how horribly wrong that awful messydom is.
The same is true with this claptrap about demand stimulus as communism. As it happens, every communist regime in history has outlawed civilian murder. Must we immediately fire all our homicide detectives and release all our convicted murderers to avoid being tainted by associating with those evil Reds? Might we instead recognize that murder is something that ought be discouraged in societies of all economic orientations? If we have minds enough to see that clearly, then it is actually not such a big step to understanding why no economic paradigm should be taken as cause to reject stimulus spending as a response to slowdowns featuring high unemployment and/or weak consumer spending.
When the private sector fails to sustain growth, stepping in with public sector expansion can reduce losses or even (if sufficiently large) reverse the trend. If done skillfully, such spending may amount to less than the revenue an enhanced recovery will produce. Yet we cannot even begin to have the important national debate about how to execute the fix because one wing of our national politics is consumed by the idea that we ought instead downsize the government right in the middle of our troubles, thus pitting even more unemployment and even less consumer demand against the possibility of recovery.
Personally, I wonder where sploshcouple's sense of this ends. Is it wrong for the federal government to provide relief to Americans injured or displaced by natural disasters? Should the federal government stop providing financial assistance to bright young people dealing with the enormous costs of higher education in the 21st century? For that matter, why to we all get one common national defense? That's pure communism for the government to take defense out of the hands of corporations and private citizens, nationalizing such an important activity under one huge bureaucracy!
My point here is that there is no choice that is not a choice. We can, entirely within the bounds of the Constitution, act together in all sorts of useful ways that make the nation better off than if there was no collective action. That a fringe of radical extremists might disagree with some or even all of those actions does not make our common defense or even the pursuit of our general welfare either immoral or unconstitutional. Again, the language of the Constitution intends to give everyone the vote, but it does not intend to give everyone the veto.
sploshcouple seems to imagine he speaks for the entire United States of America, yet he clearly has a special understanding of what the U.S.A. is. Fortunately, >95% of us do not share that special understanding. Rather than cowering inside a bunker-like mind, well-insulated from any facts that might shatter the delusion, most Americans are willing to expose themselves to multiple points of view and let hard evidence have some bearing on the opinions we form.
Neither representative government in the abstract nor representative government in this particular instance are incompatible with either income taxes or Keynesian stimulus. In fact, representative government could easily occur in a nation that was communist as a function of constitutional mandate. Imagine elections that pitted a Red Party (favoring traditional values and industrial growth) against a Green Party (favoring modern values and environmental protection.) A vigorous clash of ideas, impartially adjudicated elections, and a wide range of legislation could all follow from that process. The fact that one nut online cannot imagine such a possibility does not magically redefine terms like "republic" or even "communism."
As it happens, the United States is a capitalist society. Even Barack Obama has made that declaration, though personally I wish he had not affirmed our Achilles Heal like that. We are plagued by the dominance of market fundamentalists who see capitalism as this fragile flower that must be protected from all impurities like financial regulations, environmental protections, educational spending, social spending, etc. It blinds us to the possibilities more effective economic policies offer for real growth. It also blinds us to the possibilities a stronger dose of socialism offers for improved longevity, improved quality of life, and higher public morale.
noise, I sense you already know the score with sploshcouple, and I do hope you will not be discouraged by his unwelcoming attitude. On behalf of the majority of Americans who are not delusional anarcho-capitalist dingbats, I apologize for the boorish behavior of this extraordinarily bad citizen. There may be many like him, but there are a great many more who recognize ignorance and intolerance are not American values. Every large population has its share of anarchist nitwits and fascist nitwits. Yet every large population also has a much more abundant center, full of people who just want to live and love and work in peace. I hope the road ahead steers you as clear of the nitwits as possible while affording ample opportunity to get to know the decent and reasonable people who do not dwell on the fringes of extremist thought.
Regards,
messydom
Yet I should not pick on modern geocentrists. As ignorant as they may be about the heavens, not a one of them is arrogant enough to seek work as an astronomer. Some of them may well be competent at their professions, decent in their personal lives, and generally positive forces in the world. The same cannot be said for American voters who make harbor fundamental errors of fact about American politics. All too often, a citizen will loudly and proudly promote views which are at odds with the facts. Anchored in an alternate reality, sustained by a panorama of deliberately misleading media, these individuals obstruct realistic discourse while lending their support to public figures that range from the laughably deranged to the dangerously misguided.
The obnoxious half of sploshcouple will not let us overlook this phenomenon. To hear him tell it, there must be a grand conspiracy between myself and the publishers of English language dictionaries. After all, they join me in daring to suggest that "democracy" is a term applicable to government by elected representatives. Clearly it cannot be that he took his guidance from a bit of obvious propaganda posted on YouTube. It could only be the case that the mainstream media, textbook publishers, lexicographers, pundits, and even elected officials including all modern Presidents have all been horribly abusing the term "democracy" so that in the summer of 2011 this one noble warrior for truth and justice would be thwarted in his quest to show how horribly wrong that awful messydom is.
The same is true with this claptrap about demand stimulus as communism. As it happens, every communist regime in history has outlawed civilian murder. Must we immediately fire all our homicide detectives and release all our convicted murderers to avoid being tainted by associating with those evil Reds? Might we instead recognize that murder is something that ought be discouraged in societies of all economic orientations? If we have minds enough to see that clearly, then it is actually not such a big step to understanding why no economic paradigm should be taken as cause to reject stimulus spending as a response to slowdowns featuring high unemployment and/or weak consumer spending.
When the private sector fails to sustain growth, stepping in with public sector expansion can reduce losses or even (if sufficiently large) reverse the trend. If done skillfully, such spending may amount to less than the revenue an enhanced recovery will produce. Yet we cannot even begin to have the important national debate about how to execute the fix because one wing of our national politics is consumed by the idea that we ought instead downsize the government right in the middle of our troubles, thus pitting even more unemployment and even less consumer demand against the possibility of recovery.
Personally, I wonder where sploshcouple's sense of this ends. Is it wrong for the federal government to provide relief to Americans injured or displaced by natural disasters? Should the federal government stop providing financial assistance to bright young people dealing with the enormous costs of higher education in the 21st century? For that matter, why to we all get one common national defense? That's pure communism for the government to take defense out of the hands of corporations and private citizens, nationalizing such an important activity under one huge bureaucracy!
My point here is that there is no choice that is not a choice. We can, entirely within the bounds of the Constitution, act together in all sorts of useful ways that make the nation better off than if there was no collective action. That a fringe of radical extremists might disagree with some or even all of those actions does not make our common defense or even the pursuit of our general welfare either immoral or unconstitutional. Again, the language of the Constitution intends to give everyone the vote, but it does not intend to give everyone the veto.
sploshcouple seems to imagine he speaks for the entire United States of America, yet he clearly has a special understanding of what the U.S.A. is. Fortunately, >95% of us do not share that special understanding. Rather than cowering inside a bunker-like mind, well-insulated from any facts that might shatter the delusion, most Americans are willing to expose themselves to multiple points of view and let hard evidence have some bearing on the opinions we form.
Neither representative government in the abstract nor representative government in this particular instance are incompatible with either income taxes or Keynesian stimulus. In fact, representative government could easily occur in a nation that was communist as a function of constitutional mandate. Imagine elections that pitted a Red Party (favoring traditional values and industrial growth) against a Green Party (favoring modern values and environmental protection.) A vigorous clash of ideas, impartially adjudicated elections, and a wide range of legislation could all follow from that process. The fact that one nut online cannot imagine such a possibility does not magically redefine terms like "republic" or even "communism."
As it happens, the United States is a capitalist society. Even Barack Obama has made that declaration, though personally I wish he had not affirmed our Achilles Heal like that. We are plagued by the dominance of market fundamentalists who see capitalism as this fragile flower that must be protected from all impurities like financial regulations, environmental protections, educational spending, social spending, etc. It blinds us to the possibilities more effective economic policies offer for real growth. It also blinds us to the possibilities a stronger dose of socialism offers for improved longevity, improved quality of life, and higher public morale.
noise, I sense you already know the score with sploshcouple, and I do hope you will not be discouraged by his unwelcoming attitude. On behalf of the majority of Americans who are not delusional anarcho-capitalist dingbats, I apologize for the boorish behavior of this extraordinarily bad citizen. There may be many like him, but there are a great many more who recognize ignorance and intolerance are not American values. Every large population has its share of anarchist nitwits and fascist nitwits. Yet every large population also has a much more abundant center, full of people who just want to live and love and work in peace. I hope the road ahead steers you as clear of the nitwits as possible while affording ample opportunity to get to know the decent and reasonable people who do not dwell on the fringes of extremist thought.
Regards,
messydom
|
 | |
 |
|
Upcoming Events:
Scene Highlights:
Scene Highlights:
