[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[RKMBrown]

FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.

More typically wages rise after prices inflate.

The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

 

[Foxfyre]

FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.

More typically wages rise after prices inflate.

The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

And labor creates inflation only when it is not offset by value, profits, and/or everything else stays the same.

In basic economics we learned the principle of pricing bread. Wanting maximum profits, the baker prices the bread for the maximum amount that people are willing to pay. Charge too much and people will not buy bread. But if enough additional people will buy the bread when the price is dropped to increase the profits to the baker, the price will drop. But at any price, people will only buy so much bread at any price and when that level of supply and demand has been reached, the price is fixed at that level.

Now then, a shrewed baker knows that the efficiency and effectiveness of his employers are a factor in people buying his bread instead of from some other baker, and those who are productive and efficient and effective in producing a superior product are likely to merit higher wages than those who just put in their time but no extra effort. But because paying those higher wages increases his abiity to produce more of a good product and thereby increase his profits, that is money well spent by the baker. And contributes to inflation not at all. In fact the more demand there is, the higher the wages the employees are likely to earn, and inflation can actually be reduced or eliminated.

I paid more than $2,000 for my first computer - slow, inefficient, tiny hard drive, limited capabilites.
On Black Friday this past year I paid less than $300 for a computer with a terrabyte of hard drive space, lighting fast speed, and all the bells and whistles that allow me to do anything I know how to do on a computer. I am guessing that as the costs of computers have been coming steadily down, the wages of those who design, program, and build them have been going substantially up. And that hasn't contributed to inflation one whit.

 

[RKMBrown]

The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

And labor creates inflation only when it is not offset by value, profits, and/or everything else stays the same.

In basic economics we learned the principle of pricing bread. Wanting maximum profits, the baker prices the bread for the maximum amount that people are willing to pay. Charge too much and people will not buy bread. But if enough additional people will buy the bread when the price is dropped to increase the profits to the baker, the price will drop. But at any price, people will only buy so much bread at any price and when that level of supply and demand has been reached, the price is fixed at that level.

Now then, a shrewed baker knows that the efficiency and effectiveness of his employers are a factor in people buying his bread instead of from some other baker, and those who are productive and efficient and effective in producing a superior product are likely to merit higher wages than those who just put in their time but no extra effort. But because paying those higher wages increases his abiity to produce more of a good product and thereby increase his profits, that is money well spent by the baker. And contributes to inflation not at all.

Spoken like a good manager. Unfortunately good managers are far between, and even the good managers can be over-ridden by corporate finance who place head count as one big number in a spreadsheet. Most bread makers pay all bakers the same rate of pay. Of course with unions comes pay based on tenure. ROFL many cost factors. Life just isn't as simple as an easy quip or catch phrase is it...

 

[RKMBrown]

I paid more than $2,000 for my first computer - slow, inefficient, tiny hard drive, limited capabilites.
On Black Friday this past year I paid less than $300 for a computer with a terrabyte of hard drive space, lighting fast speed, and all the bells and whistles that allow me to do anything I know how to do on a computer. I am guessing that as the costs of computers have been coming steadily down, the wages of those who design, program, and build them have been going substantially up. And that hasn't contributed to inflation one whit.

I paid about 1200 for my first PC setup... it was an IBM PCjr. Good times.

With the exception of Engineers working for the Government, the salary of most engineers have retreated significantly since the dot com bubble and subsequent recessions. Mostly due to price presure from India, China, etc. The offshoring and inshoring has killed the private sector pay rate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

And labor creates inflation only when it is not offset by value, profits, and/or everything else stays the same.

In basic economics we learned the principle of pricing bread. Wanting maximum profits, the baker prices the bread for the maximum amount that people are willing to pay. Charge too much and people will not buy bread. But if enough additional people will buy the bread when the price is dropped to increase the profits to the baker, the price will drop. But at any price, people will only buy so much bread at any price and when that level of supply and demand has been reached, the price is fixed at that level.

Now then, a shrewed baker knows that the efficiency and effectiveness of his employers are a factor in people buying his bread instead of from some other baker, and those who are productive and efficient and effective in producing a superior product are likely to merit higher wages than those who just put in their time but no extra effort. But because paying those higher wages increases his abiity to produce more of a good product and thereby increase his profits, that is money well spent by the baker. And contributes to inflation not at all.

Spoken like a good manager. Unfortunately good managers are far between, and even the good managers can be over-ridden by corporate finance who place head count as one big number in a spreadsheet. Most bread makers pay all bakers the same rate of pay. Of course with unions comes pay based on tenure. ROFL many cost factors. Life just isn't as simple as an easy quip or catch phrase is it...

Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits. And in so doing that, the business owner often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product. The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits. Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices. And that does not increase inflation.

The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee. In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer. But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer. Which do you think will be paid better? And how is that not fair?

When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system. And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.

 

[RKMBrown]

And labor creates inflation only when it is not offset by value, profits, and/or everything else stays the same.

In basic economics we learned the principle of pricing bread. Wanting maximum profits, the baker prices the bread for the maximum amount that people are willing to pay. Charge too much and people will not buy bread. But if enough additional people will buy the bread when the price is dropped to increase the profits to the baker, the price will drop. But at any price, people will only buy so much bread at any price and when that level of supply and demand has been reached, the price is fixed at that level.

Now then, a shrewed baker knows that the efficiency and effectiveness of his employers are a factor in people buying his bread instead of from some other baker, and those who are productive and efficient and effective in producing a superior product are likely to merit higher wages than those who just put in their time but no extra effort. But because paying those higher wages increases his abiity to produce more of a good product and thereby increase his profits, that is money well spent by the baker. And contributes to inflation not at all.

Spoken like a good manager. Unfortunately good managers are far between, and even the good managers can be over-ridden by corporate finance who place head count as one big number in a spreadsheet. Most bread makers pay all bakers the same rate of pay. Of course with unions comes pay based on tenure. ROFL many cost factors. Life just isn't as simple as an easy quip or catch phrase is it...

Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits. And in so doing that, the business owner often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product. The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits. Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices. And that does not increase inflation.

The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee. In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer. But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer. Which do you think will be paid better? And how is that not fair?

When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system. And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.

Good points. However in the real world there are also monopolies. Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...

Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.

For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.

Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.

As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.

You see we don't live in a free market system. Not any more. Why? Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Spoken like a good manager. Unfortunately good managers are far between, and even the good managers can be over-ridden by corporate finance who place head count as one big number in a spreadsheet. Most bread makers pay all bakers the same rate of pay. Of course with unions comes pay based on tenure. ROFL many cost factors. Life just isn't as simple as an easy quip or catch phrase is it...

Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits. And in so doing that, the business owner often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product. The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits. Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices. And that does not increase inflation.

The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee. In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer. But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer. Which do you think will be paid better? And how is that not fair?

When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system. And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.

Good points. However in the real world there are also monopolies. Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...

Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.

For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.

Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.

As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.

You see we don't live in a free market system. Not any more. Why? Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.

But that isn't the point is it? The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.

What you say here is true. But it shouldn't be true. We should demand that it no longer be true.

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands. And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense. And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.

 

[ilia25]

FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.

More typically wages rise after prices inflate.

The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.

 

[Redfish]

The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.

supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits. And in so doing that, the business owner often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product. The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits. Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices. And that does not increase inflation.

The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee. In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer. But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer. Which do you think will be paid better? And how is that not fair?

When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system. And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.

Good points. However in the real world there are also monopolies. Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...

Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.

For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.

Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.

As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.

You see we don't live in a free market system. Not any more. Why? Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.

But that isn't the point is it? The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.

What you say here is true. But it shouldn't be true. We should demand that it no longer be true.

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands. And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense. And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.

Yeah that would be great for the freedom loving Americans. Unfortunately, there are a great many Americans who don't currently want a chance to work for a living. Freedom... not for those folks, they want a tyrannical government who will take from the rich to pay them to sit on their couch. Nah, they want their cut of the American Dream and they believe they are entitled to it.

We allowed majority vote for the senate throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed income tax, throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed the 14th amendment to include words that forever watered down statehood throwing out that balance against tyranny, we elected Barrack who claimed he would change every single thing about this country...

Put a fork in it... we're done for. Heck we don't even have a voting system that can allow for a conservative to win an election in a conservative primary, not when the majority of progressives can vote for the republican socialist who is homophobic and a hundred years old.

 

[Foxfyre]

The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods. Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.

The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.

Depends on how much automation there is. The cost of Mexican hand woven rugs are hugely labor intensive as the materials are generally donated. The cost of labor for those done by feeding some kind of material into a machine that then produces the rug, much less so.

But nobody is worth more than the profit he or or she produces for his/her employer. That means that he/she needs to generate income for the business equal to his/her wages and all othe costs to the employer - benefits, taxes, insurance, etc. - plus a reasonable profit for the employer. The better he/she does that, the more valuable his/her labor becomes, and, if the employer is any kind of a business person, the more the worker will be paid.

 

[ilia25]

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
1) Pulling the economy out of depression
2) Providing social security and health insurance

Take health insurance. It only works if:
1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius

Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.

Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.

All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.

 

[Foxfyre]

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
1) Pulling the economy out of depression
2) Providing social security and health insurance

Take health insurance. It only works if:
1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius

Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.

Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.

All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.

We've already been down that road and I have already provided several different sources to rebut your opinion on that. Your continuing to repeat it over and over and over isn't going to make it any more true than it was when you first posted it.

We would all be much better off and we would each need to pay a much much smaller 'fair share' if the federal government did not do what the states, local communities, and the private sector can do better.

 

[ilia25]

The better he/she does that, the more valuable his/her labor becomes, and, if the employer is any kind of a business person, the more the worker will be paid.

Well, that is actually not true, business profits do not cause worker wages rising. Not directly, and certainly not by employer being "any kind of a business person".

But we were talking about the causes of inflation.

 

[ilia25]

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
1) Pulling the economy out of depression
2) Providing social security and health insurance

Take health insurance. It only works if:
1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius

Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.

Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.

All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.

We've already been down that road and I have already provided several different sources to rebut your opinion on that.

Maybe someday you will learn that sources do not provide rebuttals. Facts and logical argument based on those facts do. And you are reluctant to provide any.

 

[RKMBrown]

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
1) Pulling the economy out of depression
2) Providing social security and health insurance

Take health insurance. It only works if:
1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius

Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.

Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.

All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.

WOW just WOW

Slavery is no different than a law to use seat belts. Wow. Just a shade of grey between a law meant to protect people and a law meant to force Peter to pay for Paul's retirement. Wow, just wow!

Just have to shake my head at the lunacy from the left. Ok fine. I'll quit working today. I refuse to work tomorrow. I need money. Send me your paycheck so I can buy my groceries. I'll accept paypal.

 

[PMZ]

The myth of conservatism is built on top of the myth of the free market. The myth of the free market is based on the myth of the fully informed consumer. The myth of the fully informed consumer is based on the myth that advertising informs.

The best example of this, interestingly enough, are conservatives who believe that they are freely participating in the market place of political ideas by "learning" about their options from Rush and Rupert et al and their megalomaniacal media empire.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good points. However in the real world there are also monopolies. Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...

Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.

For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.

Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.

As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.

You see we don't live in a free market system. Not any more. Why? Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.

But that isn't the point is it? The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.

What you say here is true. But it shouldn't be true. We should demand that it no longer be true.

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands. And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense. And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.

Yeah that would be great for the freedom loving Americans. Unfortunately, there are a great many Americans who don't currently want a chance to work for a living. Freedom... not for those folks, they want a tyrannical government who will take from the rich to pay them to sit on their couch. Nah, they want their cut of the American Dream and they believe they are entitled to it.

We allowed majority vote for the senate throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed income tax, throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed the 14th amendment to include words that forever watered down statehood throwing out that balance against tyranny, we elected Barrack who claimed he would change every single thing about this country...

Put a fork in it... we're done for. Heck we don't even have a voting system that can allow for a conservative to win an election in a conservative primary, not when the majority of progressives can vote for the republican socialist who is homophobic and a hundred years old.

Yes you're right. And if you're into conspiracy theories that make sense, check in on Political Chic's thread "A Different Perspective." I think it is in politics. And ignore all the leftwing caterwauling about whose is blackest and who is to blame yadda yadda and really focus on the concept she laid out there in the OP. It is also pertinent for this thread. No way any dedicated Leftist is gonna touch that and they're doing their damndest to deflect from it.

But I'm not ready to stick a fork in it just yet. For everybody who thinks like Ilia there is still somebody who thinks like you. I am not ready to give up the great experiment the Founders left to us just yet. I have to believe that if reasonable people will just keep repeating reasonable things that are true, we can begin to swing the pendulum back to common sense and the amazing concepts of liberty, choice, options, and opportunities that a regulated free market allows.

I do believe we are the last generation with any chance to do that.

 

[RKMBrown]

The myth of conservatism is built on top of the myth of the free market. The myth of the free market is based on the myth of the fully informed consumer. The myth of the fully informed consumer is based on the myth that advertising informs.

The best example of this, interestingly enough, are conservatives who believe that they are freely participating in the market place of political ideas by "learning" about their options from Rush and Rupert et al and their megalomaniacal media empire.

Said another way... Truth is usually subjective and rarely objective.

 

[ilia25]

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them. Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can. Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it. Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
1) Pulling the economy out of depression
2) Providing social security and health insurance

Take health insurance. It only works if:
1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius

Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.

Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.

All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.

WOW just WOW

Slavery is no different than a law to use seat belts. Wow. Just a shade of grey between a law meant to protect people and a law meant to force Peter to pay for Paul's retirement. Wow, just wow!

Is that a poetry, or you are trying to put forth some argument?

Just have to shake my head at the lunacy from the left. Ok fine. I'll quit working today. I refuse to work tomorrow. I need money. Send me your paycheck so I can buy my groceries. I'll accept paypal.

Nobody is advocating such policies. The goal is to make people working the best they can.