Mns wrote:
Maybe you should read the Communist Manifesto. Ayn Rand (or however you spell her name) is one of the most blatantly biased capitalists ever.
Having a mob toss your family out of its home and business during the revolution in Russia probably has that effect on people. It's probably easier to take the "that could never happen here" route and deride the (admittedly horribly written) warning(s) from someone that lived through it.
Mns wrote:
That's cool. I'm assuming that if you're reading Ayn Rand, you've had your head up your ass for the past couple of years. If you haven't noticed, "fiscal conservatives" are doing literally everything they can to destroy taxes for the upper 5% of the nation while calling the other 95% "lazy", denying them unemployment, and making them float the bill for the rich. Hell, the whole derivatives fiasco was basically "privatizing gains, socializing losses" shtick.
You know, I hear a lot of people complain about "the rich" not paying their "fair share." Last time I remember seeing figures, about 45%-50% of the people in this country didn't actually pay any income taxes, either because they didn't make enough or because "credits" they received exceeded what their contribution would have been (up until last year, I was one of these people).
The people referred to when you say "the upper 5%," because of the way our tax code is structured, includes professionals like doctors, who spend eight-to-ten years of their prime earning years being educated to do their job, and generally piling up debt while they do it. Yes, it also includes CEOs and other "undesirables" that I generally hear mentioned when someone is railing on about those terrible rich people, but the majority of these people are small business owners and educated professionals. That "upper 5%" pays over 50% of what is collected in the form of taxes.
So essentially 50% pay 5% (or less) while 5% pay about 50%. This leads me to believe that people whining about "fair shares" understands the meaning of neither "fair" nor "share," and enjoy vocalizing their ignorance.
If you still think the "tax the rich" idea is a good one, look to states like NY and CA where they have tried this. Both are in horrible fiscal states and "the rich," who both states were looking to as the solution to their fiscal woes, are fleeing in droves. Increasing the taxes on "the rich" has historically had a negative impact on the economy because "the rich" tend to cease spending and reduce their business activity (including activities like expanding business, which means hiring new workers...10% unemployment???).
Mns wrote:
You wanna cut costs? Cut military spending. Abolish the Bush-era tax cuts. Instead of bitching about how people in the government actually make money to provide for their family (IIRC, wages have been rather flat (controlling for inflation) for the past 20 years while the cost of living has increased), why not cut the things that are actually overbloated?
Well, the wage stagnation is fine with me. I saw a report while flipping through the channels where some research group had found that the average government employee (local, state, and/or federal) made, on average, twice what their private sector counterparts did.
And if you want cut military/intelligence spending and quit "fucking with Iran's shit," go for it. Just don't come glowing by my house after they work out the atom-bomb and get one here some way. Even Our Lord and Savior Obama is bright enough to know that it's a bad idea to let a nation of people piloted by a theocratic regime that believes in and is eager for the end-of-times to the point that they'd do whatever they could to bring it about is not a nation that should be left alone with yellow-cake and lab equipment.
Mns wrote:
I mean, we still have forts with tens of thousands of troops stationed from the end of WWII. But no, let's bitch about pennies going to help turtles or giving aid to the truly destitute instead.
THAT I will agree with wholeheartedly. There is no sane reason we should be footing the bill for the military defense of (a mostly ungrateful) Europe and Japan. I'm pretty sure that fascism and emperor-worship are dead enough that we can rescind some sections of our peace agreements from the middle of the last century.
Oh, and if I had the $3.4 MILLION in "pennies" that went to the "turtle tunnel," I could find better ways to piss it away than by putting in a turtle tunnel. I know that by "pennies" you mean it's a drop of piss in the bucket that is the federal budget, but if there were a lot fewer drops of piss in the buck, those "pennies" would at least feel like dimes or nickels to you. All those "pennies" add up, you know.
Like I said, welfare, be it for Wall Street or the ghetto, is bad, M'kay? I'm not suggesting we just walk out tomorrow and strip the rug out from under people's feet. There would have to be a timed "exit strategy" that would involve helping people with job/education programs, and while it would be unpopular, relocation to areas with better opportunities.
A lot of the problems with the poor in this country used to be dealt with through charity, but a lot of charity efforts dried up in the years after we became a nation of Scrooges who were asking "don't my tax dollars go for that?"
Your Pal,
Jubber