Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of this scale. Indeed, much of the massive infrastructure projects upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access all the world's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the businesses of the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model, where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy.
As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven by debt. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
What an upside down view of the world you have. Unspoken contract. Super secret plans to help the middle class... ROFL Government doesn't provide ANYTHING. The people of this country employ government workers. The Tax payer foots the bill FOR EVERYTHING. Oh look how much we did for you we spent a trillion dollars of your money to give you water... ROFL Yeah cause no state could ever have worked with other states to do a water works project. ROFL
I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
Nutballs with guns is a different story.
There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control. Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals. If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
Yeah, and if no one's allowed to have them . . . criminals will STILL have them. It's like they don't pay attention to what they're allowed to do, or something.
I'd love to hear some of these "effective gun control success stories". Do tell.
You "don't see" a problem with criminals with guns to anyone but other criminals, huh? Perhaps if you stopped staring at your own belly button, leftist, and took a gander at the real world around you once in a while. Why don't you tell us how you "know" that only criminals have to worry about armed criminals, hmm?
I've lived a long time without being armed with out a single problem. I have many friends who've had the same experience. Yet I hear from folks like you that there's apparently a war going on.
Personally I think my odds of being shot by accident is greater than by crime.
Yeah, and if no one's allowed to have them . . . criminals will STILL have them. It's like they don't pay attention to what they're allowed to do, or something.
I'd love to hear some of these "effective gun control success stories". Do tell.
You "don't see" a problem with criminals with guns to anyone but other criminals, huh? Perhaps if you stopped staring at your own belly button, leftist, and took a gander at the real world around you once in a while. Why don't you tell us how you "know" that only criminals have to worry about armed criminals, hmm?
I've lived a long time without being armed with out a single problem. I have many friends who've had the same experience. Yet I hear from folks like you that there's apparently a war going on.
Personally I think my odds of being shot by accident is greater than by crime.
I hear you. If you don't think you need a gun, that justifies your view supporting government taking everyone else's gun. That is the lofty standard liberals hold yourselves to.
Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of this scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy).
As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
I can always tell when you agree with my argument. You ask me to leave or scream fox.Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of this scale. Indeed, much of the massive infrastructure projects upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access all the world's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the businesses of the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model, where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy.
As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven by debt. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
What an upside down view of the world you have. Unspoken contract. Super secret plans to help the middle class... ROFL Government doesn't provide ANYTHING. The people of this country employ government workers. The Tax payer foots the bill FOR EVERYTHING. Oh look how much we did for you we spent a trillion dollars of your money to give you water... ROFL Yeah cause no state could ever have worked with other states to do a water works project. ROFL
Still surprised that you are unable to leave this country for greener pastures. Why would anyone with the means to correct their situation instead choose to live in a country that they hate?
You are a failure compared to illegal workers who risk their lives to find a better life.
Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of this scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy).
As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
While details that you post are quite conspiracy theory centric for my beliefs, I think that the effects that you worry about are real worries. I tend to place the blame more on the impact of media on culture though.
Media has taught us to worship celebrity (read wealth, read aristocracy), violence, irresponsibility, ignorance, greed, and hate.
I personally can't imagine a successful country emerging from that culture.
People say that alcoholics don't recover until they hit rock bottom.
I don't know if that applies to cultures too.
If it does, we have stormy seas ahead.
I can always tell when you agree with my argument. You ask me to leave or scream fox.What an upside down view of the world you have. Unspoken contract. Super secret plans to help the middle class... ROFL Government doesn't provide ANYTHING. The people of this country employ government workers. The Tax payer foots the bill FOR EVERYTHING. Oh look how much we did for you we spent a trillion dollars of your money to give you water... ROFL Yeah cause no state could ever have worked with other states to do a water works project. ROFL
Still surprised that you are unable to leave this country for greener pastures. Why would anyone with the means to correct their situation instead choose to live in a country that they hate?
You are a failure compared to illegal workers who risk their lives to find a better life.
Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of this scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy).
As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
While details that you post are quite conspiracy theory centric for my beliefs, I think that the effects that you worry about are real worries. I tend to place the blame more on the impact of media on culture though.
Media has taught us to worship celebrity (read wealth, read aristocracy), violence, irresponsibility, ignorance, greed, and hate.
I personally can't imagine a successful country emerging from that culture.
People say that alcoholics don't recover until they hit rock bottom.
I don't know if that applies to cultures too.
If it does, we have stormy seas ahead.
Like I said... you can always tell when you agree with my argument. ROFL Fox fox fox...
I can always tell when you agree with my argument. You ask me to leave or scream fox.Still surprised that you are unable to leave this country for greener pastures. Why would anyone with the means to correct their situation instead choose to live in a country that they hate?
You are a failure compared to illegal workers who risk their lives to find a better life.
I didn't ask you to leave. I wondered why you choose to subject yourself and your family to what you describe as a swamp of out of control incompetent government. I can think of other countries that I would describe that way and I wouldn't live there for anything.
I can always tell when you agree with my argument. You ask me to leave or scream fox.
I didn't ask you to leave. I wondered why you choose to subject yourself and your family to what you describe as a swamp of out of control incompetent government. I can think of other countries that I would describe that way and I wouldn't live there for anything.
I did not say it's better anywhere else. America is worth fighting for. I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so. It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.
I didn't ask you to leave. I wondered why you choose to subject yourself and your family to what you describe as a swamp of out of control incompetent government. I can think of other countries that I would describe that way and I wouldn't live there for anything.
I did not say it's better anywhere else. America is worth fighting for. I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so. It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.
You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world.
"It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "
They have. Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning.
They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others, in the absence of competition, becomes make more money.
The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness. Time for you to catch up to us, not us to fall back to where you are.
You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them, bad for everyone else.
I did not say it's better anywhere else. America is worth fighting for. I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so. It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.
You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world.
"It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "
They have. Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning.
They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others, in the absence of competition, becomes make more money.
The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness. Time for you to catch up to us, not us to fall back to where you are.
You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them, bad for everyone else.
I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it. Can someone translate lib talk to english?
I did not say it's better anywhere else. America is worth fighting for. I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so. It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.
You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world.
"It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "
They have. Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning.
They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others, in the absence of competition, becomes make more money.
The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness. Time for you to catch up to us, not us to fall back to where you are.
You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them, bad for everyone else.
I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it. Can someone translate lib talk to english?
Lib talk is English. You speak, apparently, only Texan. Nothing more intelligent than rattlesnakes understand that.
You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world.
"It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "
They have. Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning.
They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others, in the absence of competition, becomes make more money.
The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness. Time for you to catch up to us, not us to fall back to where you are.
You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them, bad for everyone else.
I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it. Can someone translate lib talk to english?
TM is saying that capitalism works best in socialist countries, the world and the American leftists have figured that out, the rest of us haven't yet. The enlightened in the world like TM recognize that total government control over the economy maximizes our economic freedom. You're saying that doesn't make sense to you???
I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it. Can someone translate lib talk to english?
TM is saying that capitalism works best in socialist countries, the world and the American leftists have figured that out, the rest of us haven't yet. The enlightened in the world like TM recognize that total government control over the economy maximizes our economic freedom. You're saying that doesn't make sense to you???
Don't know TM, but to clear up some of your confusion :
Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems. They apply to markets, not countries, as virtually all countries now employ both depending on the possibility of competition in particular markets.
Capitalism in a noncompetitive market is foolishness. It would always be unaffordable as the one rule of capitalism is, make more money regardless of the cost to others. In the absence of competition that translates into make more money.
Don't know TM, but to clear up some of your confusion :
Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems. They apply to markets, not countries, as virtually all countries now employ both depending on the possibility of competition in particular markets.
Capitalism in a noncompetitive market is foolishness. It would always be unaffordable as the one rule of capitalism is, make more money regardless of the cost to others. In the absence of competition that translates into make more money.
Don't know TM, but to clear up some of your confusion :
Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems. They apply to markets, not countries, as virtually all countries now employ both depending on the possibility of competition in particular markets.
Capitalism in a noncompetitive market is foolishness. It would always be unaffordable as the one rule of capitalism is, make more money regardless of the cost to others. In the absence of competition that translates into make more money.
JUST in case anyone was unaware that you're fucking retarded...
The ignorance of the left concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
Many want to return to the 90% days over a certain amount of income and 50% over a certain amount of income.
Someone makes $200,000 and they raise the tax rate from 35% to 50% for that.
Someone makes $199.999.99 and their rate is 35% and the person that makes ONE CENT MORE has to pay 50%.
