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.
Is this all you have to defend the libertarian movement? I am not a huge believer in trickle down. I am not even a democrat. I support anyone who has a strong pro-worker track record and is not funded by big business. That obviously doesnt apply to most democrats in Congress and certainly not any Republican.
Now, lets get back to the subject. Do you deny that the libertarians deny human nature when they claim that volunteerism can make up for a proper public safety net?
People who are born disabled in America get $700 a month to survive on. Thats it. To get public housing even if disabled is very difficult and the waiting lists are many years long. $700 a month is living large? Do you really think that the libertarian strategy of stripping these people of any welfare and force them to beg is a good way to organize a society?
Bunk. That is not all they receive. Maybe the single payment from SSI or SSDI, but there are tons more bennies for the truly disabled who can actually prove the disability that prevents work. And that is just public assistance. Private charities abound for these folks, the true charity cases.
In the private, local charity model that currently donates over half a $trillion annually, I am sure that the truly disabled who are completely unable to do anything at all are decently cared for. My parish takes care of a plenty of disabled all across the age spectrum, and we are one parish in one little town near one city.
There are better ways than government largess that on its best day gives 20% of its ill gotten gains to anyone in need. That you cannot imagine any means Leviathan still holds you in thrall.
And you and I both do more work, because we do any at all, than the entitled/dependent class does.
Therefore, their personal profitability is vastly higher than ours based on simple math. Until you do no work and are paid more than them for doing the same zero work, you are lagging behind them and are also enslaved to them. If that is agreeable to you, that's your business, but your agreement does not decide truth itself.
If it is vastly more profitable to be a member of the entitled/dependent class, then the logical course of action is to become a member of the entitled/dependent class. What's stopping you?
If it is vastly more profitable to be a member of the entitled/dependent class, then the logical course of action is to become a member of the entitled/dependent class. What's stopping you?
Personally, I have never really had the urge to swap my white collar job and nice house for living in a crime zone and buying groceries with food stamps. Funny enough, I have never felt like a slave, despite being in a tax bracket that has to give substantially more than it takes....
My soul belongs to me, and even though my personal profitability is lower than the entitled/dependent class, that soul cannot be taken. I have to give it away. Joining the welfare bums is me making a Faustian bargain with government. No freaking way.
Two things the government, the entitled/dependent masters...nobody can take is my soul and my consent. In this land where everything else can be taken by force, those two things remain mine unless I give them away.
Take all you like, but you can never have my agreement. Welfare bums gave their agreement to a horribly flawed and morally bankrupt system. Once given, they can never get it back. Lazy days of PS4 and Cheetohs isn't worth the price of my soul.
What would a hypothetical deity think of a person who loathes the poor and disabled? If you're worried about the fate of your eternal soul...
Funny then that the most regulated and high taxed time in American history, from 1940 to 1970, saw the highest economic growth rates in US history. The excuse that libertarians come up with is that the rest of the world was destroyed, but thats laughable. Western Europe had surpassed their pre-war income per capita by 1950 and Germany did the same around 1954. They were booming for decades well into the 1970s.
Strong unions, high EFFECTIVE marginal tax rates, a government that built great infrastructure like the interstate system and sent the first man to the moon. Oh, and the threat from the Soviet Union. A threat that forced the oligarchy in America to open up for high and equitable economic growth even if their business empires were threatened by the change that this growth sparked.
I think the business elites in America know perfectly well that their self-serving ideology of concentrating money and power into the hands of a tiny elite is severely harmful to the economy. Some elites might delude themselves though, because the drug of power and status is too much, so they try to convince themselves that this modern day aristocracy is good for the wider economy.
Yes we had a post depression boom. And the influx of vets coming back and creating the baby boomer generation.
Its a left wing fallacy that taxes were higher in the 1950's and that somehow created growth. Average marginal tax rates, federal, state and income / payroll taxes have been climbing and are much higher now then they were during those decades:
What would a hypothetical deity think of a person who loathes the poor and disabled? If you're worried about the fate of your eternal soul...
I don't loathe the poor and disabled. Not even a little. And I voluntarily give to three separate charities and have for close to 30 years.
I disagree with being compelled under threat o violence to labor solely for the benefit of others, but then I disagree with all forms of institutional slavery.
Yes we had a post depression boom. And the influx of vets coming back and creating the baby boomer generation.
Its a left wing fallacy that taxes were higher in the 1950's and that somehow created growth. Average marginal tax rates, federal, state and income / payroll taxes have been climbing and are much higher now then they were during those decades:
To Greenberg, the takeaway from this is simple: Progressives should stop fixating on the tax rates from 60 years ago. “All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.”
To Greenberg, the takeaway from this is simple: Progressives should stop fixating on the tax rates from 60 years ago. “All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.”
Apparently, Warren Buffett didn't notice this amazing fact when he claimed to pay a lower percentage of his income than his secretary.
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.
