Class War Illustrated

[Cuyo]

You obviously don't own a business and you have to stop reading political marketing brochures. Our government is a yoke on business. It enables nothing.

O rly?

What do you do for a living? Does it involve producing or consuming anything that spends some time on an Interstate highway?

I own two businesses, a design firm I run and a restaurant my wife runs. I do her back office work as well as run my business.

Roads allow people to move in general, they are not specifically commerce, which was the nature of your statement. You said government "catalyzes commerce." I am saying there is nothing specifically that government does to aid commerce and there is an incredible amount it does to impede it. That things like roads allow people to move in general is why I am a libertarian and not an anarchist. But again roads are not really build FOR commerce and they certainly aren't used exclusively by commerce. Are you going to ask if my restaurant uses water next and credit Harry Reid for that?

I can tell from your tone that I at least got you thinking, and that's the best one can hope for in a political debate.

The Interstate system was built for purposes of both defense and commerce, and has been an astonishing boon to the latter. It's hard to imagine what the country today would be like without them. But they're just one example of why "Government is a yoke on business. It enables nothing" is broad brush and frankly, false. I could spin off dozens of programs that your private businesses depend upon directly, let alone indirectly. When you say design firm, would that be web design? Where do you think the Internet, and even the technology that allows the computer you're using to access it, came from?

The only reason I lead out with the IHS is because every citizen of the country depends on them in one way or another.

Government maintains an infrastructure that makes our society possible. I know that no one person is in love with every program or even the direction it's heading at any given time. But not everything they (we) do is bad or unnecessary just because it "Doesn't produce anything."

 

[JBeukema]

You said that, with all other expenses, being zero, America's still looking at the equivalent of bankruptcy just paying our debt to three nations based on current revenue. You said this in support of your earlier claim that spending cuts alone could not balance the budget and taxes must be increased.

Then you were asked to back it up and you've been backpedaling since.

 

[Avatar4321]

I completely reject you placing people in classes.

 

[georgephillip]

"Now we are (or used to be) a pretty rich country and the median income of the 118M people who earn enough money to pay income taxes is about $50,000 but the cost of living in the same country as people who earn an average of 976 times more than that is pretty high as well (see 'The Dooh Nibor Economy').

"Even worse, The (richest) 10,000 (Americans) paid just $112Bn in taxes last year – that’s just over 20% of their income, while the rest of the country, of course, paid a much higher percentage of their income to make up for the shortfall.

"Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world (behind Gates and Slim) paid 17.7% tax and made a point of checking and found out his employees paid an average of 32.9%."

Phil's Stock World

Apparently economic conditions in the US haven't deteriorated to the point where many conservatives will admit to being in a class war?

Hopefully Fall 2012 changes that forever.

Like this moron doesnt have a plate in his head??

Here we have an economy teetering with double dip recession and he is advocating for higher taxes on the rich............

Thankfully.............a vast majority realize the level of fcukkepedness that would cause. Its the lefty glass half full mentality. Corporate America has hundreds of billions sitting on the sidelines and the k00ks cant figure out why that is so................


A total brain fcukk up..........its fascinating.

It's the Inequality, Stupid.

In the past 30 years a huge share of US economic growth has gone to the top 0.01% of earners (about 10,000 parasites) who now take in an average of $27,000,000 per household each year.

The average income for the bottom 90% of Americans?

About $31,244.

The economy is currently teetering on a double dip recession because the bottom 90% of Americans bailed out the 10,000 parasites's Wall Street gambling losses.

Do you remember that much, Einstein?

Rich-bitch lovers like you are the only ones sufficiently stupid/brainwashed/"fcukk up" enough to be confused.

Vote Republican (or Democrat)... that's been proven to make everything better.

 

[georgephillip]

I have another question. How much do any of the programs on the left-hand side (very appropriate placing, by the way) increase the revenue stream for the government? Because history and economics have shown that the items on the right-hand side DO increase the overall tax revenues.

Of course, leftists have never been able to grasp that economics is not a zero-sum game, have they?

Every time?

Is that what you think economic history has shown?

Really?

Suggestion...read more economic history.

Right now you know know jackshit about economic history, that's obvious

She knows more than you probably wish to acknowledge.

It is those eeeeeeevulll rich who put the money into the banks to be available for others to borrow, who invest in other businesses and also their own in new equipment, products, R & D, that invariably result in new jobs, who do the huge philanthropic projects like new chemistry labs in institutions of learning, new museum exhibits, new hospital wings, philanthropic foundations and major scholarship funds. The more the government attempts to confiscate their honorably acquired wealth on the theory somebody else deserves it more, the less there will be available for all those things. And the more we will drive them and/or their wealth out of the country to more reasonable and friendly environments.

Always you have to measure your best intentions against the historical unintended negative consequences. And ideological tunnel vision that refuses to look at the lessons of history is one thing that got us into our current economic mess.

"'...Banks actually create money when they lend it.' They simply extend accounting-entry bank credit, which is extinguished when the loan is repaid.

"Creating this sort of credit-money is a privilege available only to banks, but states can tap into that privilege by owning a bank.

Public banking.

The substitute to "austerity" that neither Democrats NOR Republicans want to discuss.

 

[Oddball]

The guy that picks up our garbage doesn't create anything. Does that mean his job is not necessary? (He works for a private company but that's irrelevant here)

He provides a service that others voluntarily want to purchase...Same as the hair stylist and auto mechanic.

Gubmint uses its monopoly on the use of proactive force to coerce you to pay for things that you don't want, need and/or would never purchase if given the choice.

That's a very jaded view, but at least you get my point. I hear that all the time, "Government jobs don't create anything!" No, they provide a service that makes commerce possible or catalyzes commerce.

You might not necessarily agree with every service government provides - Neither do I. That's not the point I was making.

I'm sure even you realize, however, that many of the services provided do stimulate the economies that other people rely upon, and those same people might be the ones that become your clients in whatever it is you rely on for income.

That's not jaded, it's the fact.

Gubmint is a net consumer...It lives, by use of force, as a parasite on the productive private sector.

If it produced one iota of net positive economic activity, Soviet Russia would've been the greatest economic juggernaut in human history.

 

[Cuyo]

He provides a service that others voluntarily want to purchase...Same as the hair stylist and auto mechanic.

Gubmint uses its monopoly on the use of proactive force to coerce you to pay for things that you don't want, need and/or would never purchase if given the choice.

That's a very jaded view, but at least you get my point. I hear that all the time, "Government jobs don't create anything!" No, they provide a service that makes commerce possible or catalyzes commerce.

You might not necessarily agree with every service government provides - Neither do I. That's not the point I was making.

I'm sure even you realize, however, that many of the services provided do stimulate the economies that other people rely upon, and those same people might be the ones that become your clients in whatever it is you rely on for income.

That's not jaded, it's the fact.

Gubmint is a net consumer...It lives, by use of force, as a parasite on the productive private sector.

If it produced one iota of net positive economic activity, Soviet Russia would've been the greatest economic juggernaut in human history.

Yes, and less is always better. Which is why we're all in awe of Somalia's economic standing.

Now that we've got that unfortunate exchange out of the way, do you have any substantive retort to my claims?

 

[Oddball]

Yes, and less is always better. Which is why we're all in awe of Somalia's economic growth.

Now that we've got that unfortunate exchange out of the way, do you have any substantive retort to my claims?

Less isn't nothing....Strawman: FAIL!

Now, if gubmint spending is the root of all prosperity, why wasn't the USSR the greatest economic success story in the history of the world?

Let me guess....The right commies weren't in charge, right?

 

[Cuyo]

Yes, and less is always better. Which is why we're all in awe of Somalia's economic growth.

Now that we've got that unfortunate exchange out of the way, do you have any substantive retort to my claims?

Less isn't nothing....Strawman: FAIL.

Now, if gubmint spending is the root of all prosperity, why wasn't the USSR the greatest economic success story in the history of the world?

Let me guess....The right commies weren't in charge, right?

Who's proposing communism?

We have to strike a balance, which I think you just agreed to, though damned if you'd ever admit I have a point.

Talk about financial superpowers in world history? WE'RE IT. And we've been what you consider pseudo-commie for decades.

Let me guess: "Yes you're right Cuyo, but if we were more conservative we'd be EVEN BETTER!" right?

 

[Oddball]

That doesn't answer the question.

America went from zilch to the globe's #1 economic superpower within 150 years, with the feds consuming 3% or less of the total GDP.

Now, they're consuming more than 20% and the only answer the moonbat collectivist authoritarian "liberals" can come up with is that they didn't confiscate and transfer enough soon enough.

 

[Cuyo]

That doesn't answer the question.

The question is as ridiculous as my declaration about Somalia.

 

[georgephillip]

How does government "invest in jobs" when it doesn't produce anything, the private sector does? The continual insistence on taking money out of the private sector and invest it in creating jobs is in fact why our economy is in this dreadful state. The good news is we don't have any problems we couldn't solve if politicians would stop helping us. The bad news is politicians aren't stopping helping us...

The guy that picks up our garbage doesn't create anything. Does that mean his job is not necessary? (He works for a private company but that's irrelevant here)

He provides a service that others voluntarily want to purchase...Same as the hair stylist and auto mechanic.

Gubmint uses its monopoly on the use of proactive force to coerce you to pay for things that you don't want, need and/or would never purchase if given the choice.

Like paved roads and "low cost" fuel whose deliveries are guaranteed by the US Navy.

What institution should control the monopoly of violence in America?

Goldman Sachs?

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, and less is always better. Which is why we're all in awe of Somalia's economic growth.

Now that we've got that unfortunate exchange out of the way, do you have any substantive retort to my claims?

Less isn't nothing....Strawman: FAIL!

Now, if gubmint spending is the root of all prosperity

And you accuse him of arguing straw men

 

[JBeukema]

It's not a matter of 'more' or 'less' government. It's a matter of good and effectual government.

 

[Cuyo]

That doesn't answer the question.

America went from zilch to the globe's #1 economic superpower within 150 years, with the feds consuming 3% or less of the total GDP.

Now, they're consuming more than 20% and the only answer the moonbat collectivist authoritarian "liberals" can come up with is that they didn't confiscate and transfer enough soon enough.

My oh my, where to start.

1. The first time I've got the fed consuming more than 3% is 1813 - 37 years in if we're going from 1776.

2. It's a matter of some dispute when we became the globe's #1 economic superpower. By the end of World War One, the United States produced more goods and services than any other nation, both in total and per person - At that time the fed was spending about 17% of GDP (and never dropped below 3% again, btw). But I don't think most people would call us "Undisputed" until after WWII - At which time the fed was spending in the 40%'s (and never dropped below 13% since). These were the years of our most rapid growth.

3. We're still #1 by a long shot. But at the moment we're losing ground to China. They have the fastest growing GDP in the world; And their fed spends 22%.

Since you're so keen on speaking in absolutes, how do you explain away all these discrepancies? I mean, you've been saying some pretty dogmatic things so far, there must be some good reason for all of this?

Now just to be clear, I'm not advocating that we should behave like PRC; Just dismantling the argument you seem so intent on clinging to. So if it pleases the court, I am prepared to continue discussion sans soundbytes whenever you're ready.

So we were talking about how we need to strike a balance?

 

[Oddball]

We were the world's economic powerhouse prior to the progressive era....Another true historical fact.

That we're losing ground to China is more than likely (at least in large part) because so much of our production is being sucked off to pay for the unproductive bureaucratic parasites.

But go ahead and keep doing what you're doing, to keep getting what you're getting.

 

[Cuyo]

We were the world's economic powerhouse prior to the progressive era....Another true historical fact.

That we're losing ground to China is more than likely (at least in large part) because so much of our production is being sucked off to pay for the unproductive bureaucratic parasites.

But go ahead and keep doing what you're doing, to keep getting what you're getting.

So as a result of our channeling so much production to unproductive bureaucratic parasites, we're losing ground to a country that channels even more than we do to unproductive bureaucratic parasites?

You've finally gone and lost it Duderino.

 

[hipeter924]

We were the world's economic powerhouse prior to the progressive era....Another true historical fact.

That we're losing ground to China is more than likely (at least in large part) because so much of our production is being sucked off to pay for the unproductive bureaucratic parasites.

But go ahead and keep doing what you're doing, to keep getting what you're getting.

That, the bailout, and US companies shutting down factories and steel mills and sending all the jobs to third world nations where they could rape the workers for profit more. Fortunately some people (in US corporations and elsewhere) are starting to see reality, and some jobs are coming back now.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"'...Banks actually create money when they lend it.' They simply extend accounting-entry bank credit, which is extinguished when the loan is repaid.

"Creating this sort of credit-money is a privilege available only to banks, but states can tap into that privilege by owning a bank.

Public banking.

The substitute to "austerity" that neither Democrats NOR Republicans want to discuss.

200 years from now Banking and Insurance will be the only nationalized industries because neither produces anything and both take only a computer and a crap-load of cash to be in business. Our kids will drive that economy to the stars.

Specialty banking and all that crap that keeps Wall Street greased will be private and humming, but America will have its own Credit Union for basic banking.

Basic insurance makes sense as We, The People ARE the insurer of last resort any way as evidenced by Katrina, 9-11, Mt. St Helens, North Ridge, etc.

200 years. A lot can happen.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's not a matter of 'more' or 'less' government. It's a matter of goof and effectual government.

It's not a matter of 'more' or 'less' government. It's a matter of good and effectual government.

I knew what you meant - thanks for the morning funny!