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.
Most of the debt is because of vote buying from the masses. Want to get rid of the deficit (and start working on the debt)? Get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, and Defense. Other than interest on the debt, that's where all the spending is. This has NOTHING to do with the 1% or their income. It has everything to do with politicians buying the votes of the masses with tax dollar (and now not even so much tax dollars and debt and printed money.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by beach43ofus
I do NOT want to take the top 1%'s money at all.
I want them out of our gov't because they are failing miserably at it...we're $28,000,000,000,000 in debt. That's an F- on that alone.
Once they are gone, I want to undo everything they've done to twist our; tax system, laws, foreign aid, campaign finance, industry subsidies, budgeting, & procurement, into corrupt crony capitalism.
Again, I'm going to have to explain to everyone WHY the income and therefore wealth gap in the US is so much higher than that in European countries...
For those who think Congress (BOTH parties) encourages policies that result in the rich getting richer... Here's an explanation of WHY that is. (Hint: You yourselves are clamoring for exactly that to happen)... The liberal case for regressive taxation
Got that? If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities.
That's exactly what happens in the US, and that's what's inherently wrong with a progressive tax system; it distorts and exacerbates income/wealth inequality by necessity in order to maximize tax revenue. The Europeans (including the Scandinavians) have figured that out, and therefore rely most heavily on regressive taxes such as VAT and MUCH flatter income tax brackets.
THIS is how European countries tax: regressively. Be sure to read the scatter plot chart and understand what it is telling us. There IS a distinct pattern:
There's even a link to the research on which the Washington Post article is based. It includes numerous additional citations.
In summation... Why don't we just tax regressively like European countries? That removes the incentive for Congress to act in ways that widen the income and therefore wealth gap.
I'm not in favor of even more taxation, but what you are saying does make sense. It explains why, California, which has a very progressive tax system compared to other states, is also one of the most unequal. I'm sure tax policy isn't the only reason, but it's definitely a contributing factor.
Hence the ideal of democratic socialism, which is what Bernie and the Squad are actually promoting. I’m not a political scientist, but it seems to me that democratic socialism is a capitalist, market-based economy in which the inevitable harms and extremes of capitalism are tempered by a strong democratic government using things like taxes, social services, regulatory systems and enforcement bodies to ensure that there is a strong social safety net. By ensuring things like universal health care, a robust education system with affordable higher learning opportunities, and social programs that help the poor and ensure that no one goes hungry or homeless due to lack of income in the richest country in human history, democratic socialism mitigates some of the harms of unfettered capitalism.
Democratic Socialism exists in the US and programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all very popular. America has become increasingly captivated by the titans of industry, who have skewed its laws and systems to favor the rich and convince the masses that anything other than unfettered, unregulated capitalism is communism of a kind no different than Stalin’s or Mao’s. Americans who grew up under the New Deal die off and no one remembers how democratic socialism saved America from the markets during the Great Depression and ushered in an age of prosperity that will likely never be seen again.
The oligarchs won in the end, and they have you all fighting about things that don’t matter while they rob the world blind.
The problem with the Bernie Sanders' of the world is they just throw money at things, but they never really fix broken systems.
Our health care system has been broken for a long time. But it is rooted in our pills/surgery approach to medicine. The root of what's wrong with our health and our 70% overweight / obesity rate is the food we eat. But nobody talks about that when they talk about health care reform.
Instead, we let people get sick, then fight about how much the bill should be and who pays for it.
Same goes with lots of other systems out there (education, etc.). They just throw money at things, never admitting that beyond a certain amount, money isn't going to fix what's wrong.
I'll use an example of the homeless issue in San Fransicso. It keeps getting worse there, even though homelessness has dropped slightly across the nation. The City of SF spends over $1 Billion per year on homelessness, yet as the video says "it's worse than ever".
As one woman interviewed for the piece said "If our problems could be solved with money, they would have been solved a long time ago. So it's not financing. It's not the funding. It's policy".
So I hear all this utopian sounding stuff from Bernie Sanders and his supporters. And then I see the reality in places where progressive politics prevail (like San Francisco and Seattle). And I want no part of this progressive stuff. What they say they're going to create, and what they actually create are 2 very different things.
Really?
Looks like steps should be even smaller. Ok.
Step 1. Do you agree that I cannot go around and gather food (even wild growing) anywhere I find it because other people (cops) will force me to stop that - since all land already belong to someone?
Step 2. Do you agree that I cannot go around and grow food anywhere I want because other people (cops) will force me to stop that - since all land already belong to someone?
You, of course, can try to insist that cops are not humans, but you realize that would be end of discussion, right?
In both of your steps, you initiated force against other people first.
Once again, your particular predicament is a discussion you should have with your parents. They put you in that situation. They didn’t leave you any land to do what you want.
The problem with the Bernie Sanders' of the world is they just throw money at things, but they never really fix broken systems.
Our health care system has been broken for a long time. But it is rooted in our pills/surgery approach to medicine. The root of what's wrong with our health and our 70% overweight / obesity rate is the food we eat. But nobody talks about that when they talk about health care reform.
Instead, we let people get sick, then fight about how much the bill should be and who pays for it.
Same goes with lots of other systems out there (education, etc.). They just throw money at things, never admitting that beyond a certain amount, money isn't going to fix what's wrong.
I'll use an example of the homeless issue in San Fransicso. It keeps getting worse there, even though homelessness has dropped slightly across the nation. The City of SF spends over $1 Billion per year on homelessness, yet as the video says "it's worse than ever".
As one woman interviewed for the piece said "If our problems could be solved with money, they would have been solved a long time ago. So it's not financing. It's not the funding. It's policy".
So I hear all this utopian sounding stuff from Bernie Sanders and his supporters. And then I see the reality in places where progressive politics prevail (like San Francisco and Seattle). And I want no part of this progressive stuff. What they say they're going to create, and what they actually create are 2 very different things.
It is not the absolute state of poverty that drives the dysfunction associated with being poor. Humanity has been poor almost our entire history, and the Amish live without luxuries. The real root of the dysfunction associated with poverty is inequality. People can see people much richer than they are, who they have to compete against to live a decent life.
I agree with this. I think people would support government attempts to reduce inequality, however, if the government also incentivized better behavior among the poor. Reasonable people on the left (like Isabel Sawhill from the Brookings Institution think tank) admit that the behavior of the poor has diverged from the richer part of the population over the last 50 years, especially in terms of raising children in single parent families. Single parent families have a huge impact on opportunity and income/wealth inequality that most people on the left, especially politicians (but also many academics), do not want to talk about.
....most of the academic community has coalesced around the view that bad behaviors are a consequence, rather than a cause, of poverty. The result was that scholars continued to define the underclass simply in economic terms.
The reason for this reaction has more to do, I think, with ideology than with reality. Most academics, myself included, feel considerable sympathy for those who are poor or disadvantaged. We understand that none of us is perfect; and that while bad habits and poor discipline are widespread, they are more consequential for those living on the margin, where any slip-up may tumble someone over the edge. Moreover, children’s starting points are very uneven. As a result liberals are wary of taking a judgmental stance, and fear that by “blaming the victim†they will undercut the political will to provide more resources to the poor. The problem with this mindset is that it requires avoiding or downplaying some unpleasant facts.
....The belief that lack of income is the central problem of entrenched poverty also promotes continued emphasis on cash welfare, a strategy that has not succeeded.
...None of this means that providing lower-income families with more money is necessarily a bad thing. But we should not pretend that money alone is going to change significantly the lives of these families, beyond easing a few hardships. The challenge is to find ways of providing generous support to the poor without disregarding the unpleasant facts about their behavior. Ideally, we need to nudge them toward a different set of behaviors by linking generous governmental assistance to staying in school, delaying childbearing, getting married, and working full-time.
In both of your steps, you initiated force against other people first.
Once again, your particular predicament is a discussion you should have with your parents. They put you in that situation. They didn’t leave you any land to do what you want.
Hmm,
things are worse than I thought.
Now, explain, in detail, how me gathering wild food on the land than belongs to someone initiates force against other people? I'm not touching those people in any way.
Let me help you - you probably mean that I'm initiating force against property of other people, right?
Governments do not exist for the benefit of the people, democracy or not. Governments exist for their own power, and to protect the interests of the ruling classes. This is true literally everywhere in the world, and for all time. That isn't to say that governments are against the people. They are for the people in the same way a farmer is for his cattle and sheep. He wants them to be happy and healthy to turn him a good profit, but not because he cares about them.
This is reality folks.
I agree with this. This is also why I want a smaller government, especially at the federal level. As another poster said, the smaller the government, the freer the people.
I'll also say that eventually many of the sheep and cattle are slaughtered. Most of them never see it coming.
The problem with the Bernie Sanders' of the world is they just throw money at things, but they never really fix broken systems.
Our health care system has been broken for a long time. But it is rooted in our pills/surgery approach to medicine. The root of what's wrong with our health and our 70% overweight / obesity rate is the food we eat. But nobody talks about that when they talk about health care reform.
Instead, we let people get sick, then fight about how much the bill should be and who pays for it.
Same goes with lots of other systems out there (education, etc.). They just throw money at things, never admitting that beyond a certain amount, money isn't going to fix what's wrong.
I'll use an example of the homeless issue in San Fransicso. It keeps getting worse there, even though homelessness has dropped slightly across the nation. The City of SF spends over $1 Billion per year on homelessness, yet as the video says "it's worse than ever".
As one woman interviewed for the piece said "If our problems could be solved with money, they would have been solved a long time ago. So it's not financing. It's not the funding. It's policy".
So I hear all this utopian sounding stuff from Bernie Sanders and his supporters. And then I see the reality in places where progressive politics prevail (like San Francisco and Seattle). And I want no part of this progressive stuff. What they say they're going to create, and what they actually create are 2 very different things.
I get sick sick sick of the word socialist thrown around...I'm on this earth 82 yrs and love all the social services I've used to get thru my 99% life, highways, protection, postal, social security, medicare and it goes on and on....
What is so wrong with helping the down and out and some in the 99%.....
Too sad MORE don't give a helping hand with all their 1% wealth.
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Why should I work hard to pay other's tuition and forgive student loans when I worked through college to pay my own?
Why should we, as American tax payers, pay for illegal's medical bills? Or, plane loads of Asian pregnant women's babies when they just so happen to give birth in OUR country?
Why is Medicare for all such a great idea. Just a fancy name for welfare.
I could go on for pages, but I won't. And, I am nowhere near the 1%.
What you are suggesting will cost Americans, whatever their income or personal wealth.
Highways are infra structure, we should all pay for that.
We all, including you, paid for your own Social Security and Medicare...They are not entitlements or welfare
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.
