Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If those people used government privilege to gain their wealth, I am all for having them pay society the rental value of that privilege. Ted Turner is a billionaire because of his control of land and air spectrum's, both are natural monopolies that should be paid for.
Since when did Ted Turner not pay for the land he owns, or his broadcast licenses and spectrum use fees?
He paid others who owned land, he didn't pay society for his exclusivity of a natural resource.
Then your beef is with the PREVIOUS owners. THEY either did or didn't pay society for exclusivity of a natural resource. Turner just bought from the legitimate owner of record.
And what makes you think the previous owners didn't pay society for the land, anyway?
Then your beef is with the PREVIOUS owners. THEY either did or didn't pay society for exclusivity of a natural resource. Turner just bought from the legitimate owner of record.
And what makes you think the previous owners didn't pay society for the land, anyway?
Ugg, we went over all of this. The government either gave or sold to politically connected people as the stole and won land as our nation grew. Privalge began with the first owner.
Would it have been OK, if one person bought or was given all land in the nation? You need to extrapolate this stuff out, it is not that hard to understand.
Ugg, we went over all of this. The government either gave or sold to politically connected people as the stole and won land as our nation grew. Privalge began with the first owner.
If they gave the land away, I agree, there was an unfair advantage given to anyone who acquired land free of charge. If the government SOLD the land, then society was paid.
And you'll have to prove that the government only sold land to politically connected people. What I've seen indicates that the government sells to the highest bidder.
Quote:
Would it have been OK, if one person bought or was given all land in the nation?
Bought? Yes. Discrimination against a qualified buyer is illegal. Given free of charge? No, that's an unfair advantage not available to all.
If they gave the land away, I agree, there was an unfair advantage given to anyone who acquired land free of charge. If the government SOLD the land, then society was paid.
And you'll have to prove that the government only sold land to politically connected people. What I've seen indicates that the government sells to the highest bidder.
Bought? Yes. Discrimination against a qualified buyer is illegal. Given free of charge? No, that's an unfair advantage not available to all.
I think it would help if you understood the history of private land.
I do not have the opportunity to go back in time to receive a land grant from the government, all I can do now is purchase land from someone who has benefited from a history of government protected privilege, including having government buy up land around these private lands driving up the value even more.
Land Grants were given when our colonies were formed and the Homestead act alone gave 270 MILLION Acres to private individuals, not counting the land given to railroads. There was massive amounts of fraud in Homesteading leading to large companies and groups excluding farmers from water and other natural resources.
I think the essence of liberty is all about being able to be free to benefit from the fruits of your labor, your mind, your innovation your production and not have to give any of that fruit to the government.
With our basic housing costs being driven by government privilege it makes it harder for the average person to live life without major focus on basic subsistence. This is why so many people are grabbing for benefits. If we make basic living more available and inexpensive, all of these other issues will fade away.
The economy is a turtle with it's head and legs pulled into it's shell to protect itself from perceived danger. Everything Obama does just makes it pull in tighter because he does not understand the nature of the turtle. He piles all kinds of weights on the turtles back and is surprised when it does not move. The turtle will move when the weights are removed and the threat to it's well-being is gone. Of course, that's only if Obama does not kill it first...
Consumer demand will increase when consumers have more money, or feel more "wealthy".
Can't disagree with that but then what does that have to do with:
1. tax cuts for citizens
Citizens have received quite a bit of tax relief over the last two years, so apparently that isn't that answer. Also aren't you one of those fellows constantly bitching about 40% of Americans not paying any taxes at all?
2. tax cuts for corporations and reduced regulations such that corporations have more money and incentives to hire.
Ah, corporations are sitting on record levels of cash reserves as we speak. Hasn't done much for incentives to hire.
3. cutting the deficits- the spectre of the debt is weighing on consumer confidence, as the possibility of further currency devaluation or inflations looms.
Polls clearly indicate that the Federal deficit is not the top economic issue for Americans.
4, 5, 6, etc
You know the topic is about increasing consumer spending not regurgitating Republican talking points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
