09 Nov 09
Originally posted by bill718what makes you think the super rich are going to pay for health reform?
You'll pardon me if I'm not crying big tears for our beloved super rich in America. Your idea that a few percentage points in taxes on them, so the working class can have a few crumbs of healthcare, will put these people poorhouse, is just plain silly. You've been listing to propaganda from the right wing too long. This has nothing to do with the USSR. This ...[text shortened]... ce at the top. If you want to continue to suck up to these people, go ahead. I refuse!😏
09 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhy mix in A (abysmal track record) and C (craziness)?
the real-solution option is taking A, B, & C and mixing them all together, moving beyond the feel-good narratives and pragmatically figuring out what approach works the best.
A major problem with the pure B approach is that even if every person got a Harvard education and a graduate degree in rocket science, you'd still need a lot of people to wash the ...[text shortened]... ntry to be very socialistic (a la Sweden) and still have a great deal of economic freedom.
Your evaluation of the problem with B is flawed, because it doesn't consider many concepts, such as the ability of labor to move to fill jobs that require less investment or that pay more, such as from one country to another, and the shortage of skilled labor that can and does actually invest in itself enough to reap the high rewards (a reflection of the shortage is the wage gap).
The typical poor person may not become warren buffet, but they can move their family up a decile or two or three depending on their willingness and ability to sacrifice, save, invest, and work hard. It's more than A offers (hand outs to move force everyone into the 3rd decile, for example, but only as long as the past cash&earning hold out) and its more than C even cares about or understands.
10 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusI mix all three of these together because all three have some element of truth to them. The flaw for all three is that they oversimplify their stories and usually don't want to hear what the other is saying.
Why mix in A (abysmal track record) and C (craziness)?
Your evaluation of the problem with B is flawed, because it doesn't consider many concepts, such as the ability of labor to move to fill jobs that require less investment or that pay more, such as from one country to another, and the shortage of skilled labor that can and does actually invest in i s long as the past cash&earning hold out) and its more than C even cares about or understands.
B is indeed aware that the answer to poverty cannot just be a matter of handouts. Effective social programs do focus on education, training, counseling, community development, and various incentives to promote the types of behaviors that will allow a person to maximize his skills and virtues. In addition, most poor people really don't want a handout.
But A is aware that even the best capitalist system is going to have an underclass. No how much education you give people, no matter how mobile they are, there are still going to be MANY menial jobs that don't require much, if any skill, and thus just do not pay very well. No matter how virtuous everyone is, some set of losers is going to be stuck doing those jobs. So government does need to ensure that "people who play by the rules" can be assured some minimum standard of living.
C is aware that certain people do possess tremendous amounts of power and wealth - and thus can (and usually do) use that power to rig the system in their favor. This is not to say that powerful people are evil - most of them are not, and most perform vital functions. But it's important that the common people always question what the "authorities" are up to and not to accept something just because the "elites" are in favor of it. Various forms of protest and revolt may be necessary to prevent the powerful from going "too far". The founding fathers themselves were very aware of the dangers of power when they set up a system of "checks and balances" to make sure power was never too concentrated.
10 Nov 09
I certainly wouldnt want my stimulus funded tax decrease to go away at this time. Nor could we immediately stop UI extensions. Construction projects can't stop midstream and so many state's have used the funds to shore up it's budget - inluding paying state highway patrol officers and teachers.
I believe that the stimylus will need to run it's course.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by Melanerpesoooh; oooh! Let me guess:
It seems like political debate about the economy is mainly the following three people talking past one another - with none really trying to address what the other two are saying.
Person A:
The means of production are controlled by a small number of evil capitalists who live as kings, and they benefit from the work of a large mass of people paid very l ...[text shortened]... common people rise up and depose all these elitists who are trying to control everyone's life.
Person A: rwingett
Person B: scacchipazzo
Person C: whodey
Am I close? 😉
10 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76actually, elfejesus has himself embraced B in this thread.
oooh; oooh! Let me guess:
Person A: rwingett
Person B: scacchipazzo
Person C: whodey
Am I close? 😉
I was actually thinking about the general debate as a whole. But since the RHP debate is a microcosm of that whole, draw whatever conclusions you wish 😉