2010-4-4 04:51:00
JJ:
Not only Idaho but many nations of the world are suffering through this bad economy and most political leaders are forced to make cuts. Greece has it worse than us and could foreshadow our future situation. They are marching in the streets and protesting various cuts. Wherever cuts are made the person effected thinks the other guy should suffer but not him.
In hard times the solution presented to economic shortfalls is not to tighten the belt, but to tax more, but there is a limit to this as Greece found out with a 28 percent sales tax.
Ms Shuker wants us to "increase taxes on liquor and cigarettes, collect Internet and catalog sales taxes." I really hate to see more taxes, especially involving the Internet.
How about this? Sell off a small portion of our public lands to citizens and use that money to fund education until we get back on our feet? I'd call that a "win-win" situation, as we have more public land than we can manage.
"Poobah":
"Sell off the public lands rather than tax for necessary services? Why don't we sell the Whitehouse and the Pentagon? Let the military leadership telecommute to work and the President can live in a cheap apartment. Why not sell off the fancy new offices our representatives built for themselves...?"
JJ:
That would be silly indeed. Unimproved property though would make a lot of sense along with taking away Pelosi's private jet. We ought to make her drive to Washington in a Volkswagen Beetle so nothing would get done. That would help the economy.
"TimT":
"In the 50's and 60's we had a much more progressive income tax. No one was taxed from wealth to poverty but upward mobility was possible. As I have written before, the issue is after tax or disposable income. When you have little or nothing left for health care, savings, or educating your kids, taxes...."
JJ:
The very wealthy have their methods to escape taxes whether they be high or low. Raising taxes to punish the wealthy usually results in hurting only the small business person and middle class. Kennedy, a smart Democrat saw the progressive tax was too high and lowered it and this helped the economy.
"MissHyde":
"Bush Jr. cut taxes TWICE for the wealthy and look how that's 'helped' the economy. Next you'll be saying how great the Robber Baron era was for the poor. History shows when taxes are too low on the rich, speculation and disaster are sure to follow."
JJ:
The tax cuts did help the economy which did well until the collapse which had nothing to do with tax cuts. Additional tax hikes and talks of tax hikes are only hurting the present economy.
"CameraFan":
"How many of you this morning know the definition of Altruism? How many of you follow the tenets of Christianity or other altruistic religions? How many of you posters today actually have a social conscience?"
JJ:
What does a social conscience as defined by the Left have to do with Christianity?
"Spuddy":
"So the top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of the taxes. So those that think they should pay more -- how much more? 80 percent? 90 percent? Just curious."
JJ:
My guess is a lot of the Left think the rich should give all their money to the state and then go on welfare and live on food stamps.
"CalvinJones":
"How many rich people would there be in this country without schools to educate workers, roads to transport goods and police and military to protect the wealth from being stolen? Once again I beg and plead with all of the ditto and tea monkeys to show me this magical land of anarchy...."
JJ:
No one elected is suggesting this. The Right does not believe in no taxes, but lower taxes and more responsible spending. Your point is therefore moot.
"Whatruthinking":
"If you were to explain it, you would have to agree with Jones. The right believes in no taxes and taking more than giving. You can't have modern infrastructure, good education and fight wars on several fronts AND NOT PAY FOR IT! Responsible spending counts in all levels of not cutting social...."
JJ:
Tell me where it is written that the Right believes in no taxes and taking more than giving. That's a new one on me.
"MtnPlace":
"Joseph what planet do you live on?"
JJ:
Sometimes I think I am in the Twilight Zone on this forum.
"MtnPlace":
"Again you don't know what you are talking about. My social conscience is a direct result of my upbringing as a Christian. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and Jesus said the foremost commandment was 'love the Lord your God with all your heart...' and 'the second is like unto...."
JJ:
If you loved me as yourself then you wouldn't support taking my money by force and giving it to your pet project. Jesus never taught anything like that.
"Strategery":
"If we continue with unrestrained capitalism, a regressive tax structure and regulations that prevent upward mobility (for example, favoritism of large companies with health insurance plans and taxes); then the result will be: 1. Another Great Depression and 2. A populist takeover of the government followed by nationalization of industry."
JJ:
How can we continue with "unrestrained capitalism" when it is more restrained now than any other time in our history? We could correct the regressive tax system by lowering taxes that cause the regression. Close to half the people pay little or no federal taxes so I guess they are not being regressed upon.
And aren't results 1 & 2 already taking place under Obama?
"Whatruthinking":
"The Right believes in no taxes and taking more than giving."
JJ:
I think you've got it backwards. Close to half the population pay little or no federal taxes and most of them side with the Left who tell them they are going to receive all kinds of goodies they did not work to receive or pay for.
"Whatruthinking":
"If you were to believe the statements it makes sense. But it requires self policing. The Right cannot be trusted to self discipline, since full control in 2000 we had jobs leave and 2 unpaid wars."
http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/what_we_believe/
JJ:
Nothing there about the GOP believing in no taxes and taking more than they receive. Are you just making stuff up now?
"Strategery":
"I'm still waiting for the financial reform that should have accompanied the banker bailouts...."
JJ:
Obama and company passed some reform. If you're not happy complain to them.
"Strategery":
"The system we have now is not capitalism, socialism or even communism. I think it is somewhere between oligarchy and fascism."
JJ:
I'd say it is getting close to European style socialism.
"Strategery":
"It is well documented that pure capitalism does not work."
JJ:
And how can this be when we have never had pure capitalism? The closest we came was during the 19th century when we rose to greatness.
"Strategery":
"We are closer to unregulated pure capitalism now than during our economic heyday in the mid 20th century."
JJ:
You need to read "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand. We are not even close.
"Strategery":
"Yeah, I still disagree. The large US and multinational corporations run the government through their lobbyists and campaign contributions. Regulatory bodies like the FDA act more like industry representatives than regulators. Add in blind patriotism and you have fascism."
JJ:
I see your perspective but there can be a lot of different interpretations when you start talking socialism and fascism.
Greg Sweeney says:
"Great nations that do not fall due to war have a common theme that defines the end. It occurs when the majority of the citizens learn they can 'vote' themselves generous benefits from the 'public treasury.' The average age of nations that fall for this reason is 200 years. The United States has lasted a bit longer, so congratulations."
JJ:
While I agree with the overall danger that Greg pointed out there is some illusion in his statement. It has never been the people who have voted themselves benefits as the world has never had a pure democracy.
It has not been the people who have spent he public treasury on themselves. Instead, it has been a handful of representatives that regularly vote contrary to the will of the people. They vote for benefits for one group and then another in hope of acquiring their votes and support.
A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money that can bankrupt the nation.
At this time if it were up to the vote of the majority itself I think they would support some restoration of fiscal responsibility.
"Proletariat":
"Greg Sweeney is not entitled to his own set of facts. The U.S. has started to decline, but the ingredients for failure were sown decades ago. Avarice is so widespread that real American values are no longer recognizable. Corporations rule this nation and capitalism is its religion."
JJ:
I wish capitalism were our religion. If it were we would be in great shape.
"Ninja_Cat" wrote:
"Here's two cases for regulation; (1) Haiti had no building regulations, Chile had strict regulation after the earthquake of 1960. In the recent earthquakes: Haiti's was bad, roughly 250,000 dead. Chile's was the worst in the history of the Western Hemisphere, less than 500 dead. Why? Govt. regulation in building. "
JJ:
Why are you telling me this? I support common sense regulation, supported by the majority, that will actually enhance capitalism.
"Ninja_Cat":
"Second; Look at a Chevy Impala from 1965. No seatbelts, no airbag, no disk brakes. Now look at the 2010 model."
JJ:
And what would the 2010 model look like without the government getting involved? According to your reasoning it would still be like the 1965 model. NOT! There's no way to prove it but it may be safer. Volvo is making probably the safest car with computer monitoring so it can avoid accidents. This will save more lives than air bags. No government forced it to do this.
"Proletariat":
"Then how would you explain how Wall Street nearly bankrupted this country, was bailed out by the tax payers, but is still free to make vast profits without reform?"
JJ:
Those who were bailed out where not practicing anything close to pure capitalism, but were already in bed with the government. The real capitalists never received any bailout money.
"Poobah":
"Unregulated capitalism is one of the historical contributors to socialistic revolution, something you extreme Righty's fail to remember. In other words, the rabid efforts of the capitalists (recall the banking collapse) are, in reality, ultimately driving the bus to the other side."
JJ:
We've never had unregulated capitalism except by the pioneers who made this country great. Your point is meaningless.
"Nunyer":
"The last vestige of true capitalism is the drug trade. Unregulated. Total free market. Supply and demand. Survival of the fittest."
JJ:
Wrong.
Have you not heard of the war on drugs where billions are spent each year to stop capitalism with drugs? If we legalized drugs and did have real capitalism at work the drug problem would actually be less, similar to what happened when the 18th amendment was repealed.
"Ninja_Cat" wrote:
"However, Capitalism, left alone, would not produce in favor of the consumer (as history indicates) they would produce for the profit of the owners."
JJ:
The evidence suggests otherwise. Look at the difference between the U.S. and Russia during the Cold War when capitalism was a little freer and not a dirty word. None of the consumer goods in Russia were any good. Our stuff produced through capitalism was much better and sought after, even our Levis. Look at the difference between capitalist South Korea and North Korea where capitalism is outlawed. The truth should be blatantly obvious to anyone except a biased anti capitalist.
"Ninja_Cat" wrote:
"It's because of safety standards the improvements have been made."
JJ:
A lot of people had seat belts long before there were any laws about them. I still don't need the government telling me I have to buckle up or how much salt or ketchup I have to eat. The Left seems to want to be told what to do. Sad.
"Ninja_Cat" wrote:
"Yeah, sure. More 'Magical Thinking' just like 'Abstinence Only Education' works....
"You crack me up. I appreciate the inner child you present Joseph, but let's get real, okay?"
JJ:
If you don't agree then present some logic for your point of view rather than just making insults. For instance, explain why capitalistic South Korea does so much better than North Korea where it is outlawed.
"Ninja_Cat" wrote:
"That's a easy one. N.Korea is run by Right Winged, Nationalists who don't believe in REAL education.
"Now tell me why Sweden, France and the Netherlands have healthier people with longer life expectancy for significantly less dollars."
JJ:
A communist state is Right Wing? Dream on. There are a number of reasons for the differences and none of our shortcomings are caused by too much capitalism.
JJ:
What's strange is the public has paid 164 times as much money to see "Avatar" as "Hurt Locker." So why would such an unsuccessful movie at the box office win best picture when no one likes it enough to pay to see it? Obviously the word of mouth on this must be terrible.
The only answer I can come up with is the Oscar voters just feel the public is too stupid to know what a good movie is. Also, they are probably jealous of James Cameron and wanted to put him in his place. But after making a zillion dollars I'm sure his ego will be okay.
Copyright © 2010 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved