"Orrin Hatch: The 'Poor' Should Do More To Shrink Debt, Not The Rich"

reply to post by Radekus


You need to brush up on your understanding of communism.

Communism is supposed to be an economic system that replaces government. This is the essence of communism.

When you advocate the free market system you are advocating replacing government with an economic system, you just don't see the reality.

Yes, it would be nice if we could write a better constitution, even the founding fathers didn't think it was going to last, but it sure ain't going to happen in this political environment.

Considering the great success the U.S. has enjoyed, and Europe, and Japan, and now S. Korea, all using pretty much the same mix of government and market economics, it is really ignorant to claim that the system doesn't work. It works better than any other system out there.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

I can't give an example of a free market economy, because no such critter exist, nor has such a critter ever existed.

Yours is he exact same argument communists claim about communism.

If you had a clue as to what you are talking about, you would know that a market free of government interference is in fact Marx's communist ideal. You are embracing communism, and you don't even recognize it.

How foolish is that?

wow, wow now, Marxism and Communism aren't at all the same.
Communism was built off of Marx, and other writers of the time,
but the implementation was quite something else.
Keep in mind Marx never explained how his system would work,
he just critiqued certain aspects of society and economics
of the time. Most of his critiques were based on personal disslike
of certain aspects in society, but it wasn't a theory of anything.
If you were to combine all his critiques you end up with a
paradoxical system that doesn't work at all.
What gave him credibility was his sociological approach,
it was spot on, but when it came to economics, he was a fool.
We're talking about the same man who wanted to eliminate
the "invisible hand" from the economy of supply and demand,
if you followed macro and micro economics you would know that
this is impossible without STATE INTERVENTIONISM.
And what did it result in a Communist state like the Soviet Union?
Scarcity of produce on a massive scale, want a more recent example?
North Korea. One more reason why we should have a private sector,
we need the "invisible hand" to balance supply and demand.
Marx was a paradox, anyone with a critical mind can tell he was
off his wagon, probably the hobbies of the time had to do something with it,
I'm referring to opium smoking, amongst other things...
What I mean is, in one instance he would argue something,
then in the next he would contradict himself.
Marx didn't have an ideology, what he wrote were unorganized
contradicting theories.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

reply to post by NuroSlam

-Example Lysander Spooner and the private mail service he started that came close to putting the USPS out of service till the Federal Government stepped in to remove the cometition.

So wait a second, you support free market because you think governments regulate SMALL AND MEDIUM businesses too much? You do realize free market is built to support monopolies right?
The BIG businesses that are too big to fail so we gotta give em handouts?

Government market regulations should be imposed in such a manner as to protect national small and medium businesses while limiting big business from becoming too influential in, say, government policies?

This way you win, and the guy you're arguing wins.

Careful in supporting Neo-Liberalism, you're not benefiting, the White bourgeoisie is.
you know, the 0.01%.

Originally posted by TheMisanthrope
reply to post by inforeal

 

No one is forced to be poor for the entirety of their lives. Sure blame can be placed on a number of entities, but ever notice the majority of the poor seldom place the blame on themselves?

are you saying the poor should be blamed, because they're not able to get by on minimum wage? it's hard for anyone these days to get a job that pays anything decent, because all the corporate morons either downsized their companies, or they just moved all of their production jobs out of the country....why don't we blame all the presidents we've had...and all the political puppets that worked for them....they're the ones that got us in this mess, because they were given blank checks to spend as much as they wanted, on what they wanted...and their whole attitude was "**** america, we don't have to answer to anyone"

reply to post by moonweed


Yep, Neo-Liberalism in a nutshell.

All you guys should become centrists, seriously.

reply to post by Radekus


I basically agree with everything you state about Marx, but you are overlooking the reality of free market economics. This part of your description is the key.

We're talking about the same man who wanted to eliminate
the "invisible hand" from the economy of supply and demand,
if you followed macro and micro economics you would know that
this is impossible without STATE INTERVENTIONISM.

This isn't exactly right. Marx thought that the communist state would evolve, where the workers would overthrow government and eliminate the need for government, and that people would naturally pitch in everything would go fine and dandy.

What Marx ignored was the criminal element and human nature.

This is the exact same mistake the free market people make.

The invisible hand of the law of supply and demand will not counter, contain, or manage the criminal element.

Both systems try to eliminate government from the picture, which leads to widespread corruption, and so both systems lead to ever larger government which works only to protect the interests of the very rich. This is exactly what you see when free market admins gain power in the U.S., over and over again.

People think these concepts are opposites, but in reality, they are pretty much the same thing. They both lead to failed economies where a small group of people gain control over everyone else.

For a good example look at the history of Mexico, where they tried to set up a democratic style of government based on the U.S. Constitution, but failed, because the wealthy elites refuse to allow such a thing to happen. As long as the wealthy have the power to control government, control the money supply, and thereby the production and distribution of goods and services, there is no opportunity for the common man, and so the economy grinds to a halt, and all activity evolves around control of the process. People will not work hard unless they see opportunity for advancement. Essentially all Latin America countries fail for the same reasons.

Look at what S Korea did to turn their economy around.

reply to post by Radekus


Basically in this post you are saying the same things I have been saying for quite a while now.

The key role government should fill is evenly enforcing a fair set of rules that allows competition to thrive, and efficiency to improve.

If some company defrauds a bunch of people out of a lot of money, we shouldn't have to hire lawyers for justice. Our tax dollars should be used by our government to investigate said fraud, prosecute the crimiminals, and return the stolen property. That is the way things worked back in the seventies. De-regulation eliminated all of this, and corruption has reigned since then. We also need to reinstate usury laws. Our current interest rates are down right barbaric.

De-regulation means ignoring white collar crime.

reply to post by poet1b


In agreement with the criminal element.

I've pondered this element for quite some time,
took a while before I came up with a practical
long lasting governing style.

It's a serious mix mash of ideologies,
in the end it makes everyone content
because it gives people opportunity, choice
and a say in everything around them.

The only thing I can come up with
is new generations taking it all for granted.
Suppose education can be used in a positive manner?

I find it funny that people post on this website
videos and ideas of how to become more productive,
more independent from the system, more entrepreneurial in spirit,
yet no one is willing to go into politics, stand up for what's right,
and change the system for a better one. If any country can do it right,
it would be the good ol' U. S. of A.

Originally posted by Radekus


Good governance relies on meeting everyone's needs, not just a select group in society.
Give man the ability to fish, don't give him the fish. Equal opportunity and choice
is very important in any Post-Modern nation.

Good people need little from the government..... The select group I guess in this case is the poor and the 50% of Americans who do not pay any Fed taxes.

Where is it equal? I paid 36k in Fed taxes in 2010. If I go to the store should I also pay 10x someone else does for a loaf of bread just because I can afford it?

You seem to believe that everyone has the same lifestyle, might I remind you
that we live in a class society. The rich have more opportunity than the poor.

Class sociely created by one's own choices as to where you fit... a little different than what you are thinking about.

can you blame a skunk for being a stinker?

True hehe

Another thing to keep in mind is that two types of people live off welfare,
people with mental/physical handicaps and/or people who gave up on life
and are comfortable with the bare minimum.

I think many are just lazy in life too. I have a sister like that. She thinks she deserves everything and has not worked a real job in 20 plus years even though she is fully capable to work.

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by camaro68ss
your so hard left some times, your taking it out of context. 49% of americans dont pay taxes at all.

Where do you get that from?

Im sorry, its 41% of americans dont pay taxes.

Well yes, if we consider that about 23% of the population is below the age of 18years, 10% are retired, about 9% are unemployed, that makes about what? 42% of the population? About another 12% of full time workers earn on the lowest income bracket as well.

When you read between the lines, we can see how misleading this claim is. Unless I'm wron here? Were you only refering to working americans or the total population?

Corporations are earning record profits, and yet jobs are not being created. You think cutting more taxes for them will solve this issue any further?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by camaro68ss
your so hard left some times, your taking it out of context. 49% of americans dont pay taxes at all.

Where do you get that from?

Im sorry, its 41% of americans dont pay taxes.

Well yes, if we consider that about 23% of the population is below the age of 18years, 10% are retired, about 9% are unemployed, that makes about what? 42% of the population? About another 12% of full time workers earn on the lowest income bracket as well.

When you read between the lines, we can see how misleading this claim is. Unless I'm wron here? Were you only refering to working americans or the total population?

Corporations are earning record profits, and yet jobs are not being created. You think cutting more taxes for them will solve this issue any further?

edit on 23-7-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

Think he is talking about 41% of households. 41% make less than 37k per year hense they pay no fed taxes after their deductions.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

2) "if you tax the wealthy they'll just pass the costs on to the consumer; if you give them tax breaks, they'll pass the savings on to the consumer. Reagan was the second coming!"

If businesses get tax breaks, no business will pass on those savings to the consumer. They will keep it as profit. But if you tax them more, they will pass that on to the consumer, so they can keep their profit margin. More cost=higher price. There are, of course, those few altruistic individuals that won't pass on those costs, but they are in the extreme minority.

/TOA

reply to post by Xtrozero


I don't think you are right there.
think we made less, and we ended up owing at the end of the year last time around...
so, well, who aren't the ones who are paying taxes???
well, maybe, just maybe....
let's see, I start my own business, and deduct part of the cost of my home...
I install solar panels....and deduct some of that cost....
I go to the doctor alot, and I get a deduction!!!
I give a check to a charitable organization...and deduction!!
only thing is....I have to have the money to take advantage of these deductions to begin with!!!
I don't see to many poor people installing solar power to their rented apartments!!!

and well, if them not paying taxes is bothering the better offs and corporations so much, hey, ya know what would solve the problem, make them pay some taxes instead of getting off scott free???
instead of giving the raises and big bonuses to the higher earning in their companies, hey....
pay those in the lower more than that 38 thousand or whatever it was!!!

Nah, taxing businesses more is a bad idea because
it'll make the consumer pay more on products.
Taxing people more will end up in people not only
having a lower spending ability, but they will also
begin saving like squirrels for winter,
which means less money flows through
the economy and in effect ends in a depression...

The best solution is for government to find a way
to make more money and distribute it to the people.
This can be done with nationalization of energy
and natural resources. The profits can be used for
free education, and a half/half system of public and private health care.
(private for the richer, public for the poorer).

The rest of the money can be redistributed amongst the population
in proportion to income. Because some businesses cannot afford
to pay higher wages to their employees, these employees will get
compensated in return. In essence, we would have eliminated poverty,
and the lowest class would be that of middle class.
Not to say this is aimed solely at the poor, as I mentioned before,
the other classes would get a cut too.

Of course, as always, I'm wholeheartedly opposed to welfare of any sorts.
It's your patriotic duty to work citizen!
(let's be serious, with the progress of technology,
working becomes easier and easier)

If people have more money to spend, they will spend it,
this will stimulate the economy in a positive manner,
creating new jobs in both manufacturing and service sectors.
Couple this with protectionism and isolationism and you have
a self sufficient country whose sole goal should be to
further technology in such a manner as to colonize a new planet somewhere.
In the meantime, due to technological advancement,
we could begin mining space for resources, topple this with widespread recycling,
and we are now eliminating scarcity once and for all.
Almost forgot, one year mandatory military service for high school graduates,
someone has to fix all that crumbling infrastructure after all...

So, when are you guys gonna vote me in as your supreme leader huh?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
,
Where is it equal? I paid 36k in Fed taxes in 2010. If I go to the store should I also pay 10x someone else does for a loaf of bread just because I can afford it?

Never said you had to.
I'm giving a hypothetical scenario of what it should be,
not what it currently is.

reply to post by inforeal

I think John Lennon said it best:

"There's room at the top they are telling you still,
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."

That's all I can think about when I see these people talking about "how much opportunity there is, if you're not successful you're just lazy"

"They're telling you still" means the super rich have actually convinced these jackasses that they too can be one of the "folks on the hill". It's actually quite sad.

Look at what they've accomplished: Everyone divided and placing the blame on poor people.

No one ever argues my points...
I am le sad.

Originally posted by Radekus
Nah, taxing businesses more is a bad idea because
it'll make the consumer pay more on products.
Taxing people more will end up in people not only
having a lower spending ability, but they will also
begin saving like squirrels for winter,
which means less money flows through
the economy and in effect ends in a depression...

I agree

The best solution is for government to find a way
to make more money and distribute it to the people.
This can be done with nationalization of energy
and natural resources. The profits can be used for
free education, and a half/half system of public and private health care.
(private for the richer, public for the poorer).

Scary thought... It is kind of like burning books once you start where do you stop? Also, Government is the worst when it comes to efficiency. If they run anything they will bog it down, turning it from an asset to a liability.

The rest of the money can be redistributed amongst the population
in proportion to income. Because some businesses cannot afford
to pay higher wages to their employees, these employees will get
compensated in return.

Sing.. Money for nothing and the chicks for free....

Sounds good, but can be a real stinker in practice.

In essence, we would have eliminated poverty,
and the lowest class would be that of middle class.
Not to say this is aimed solely at the poor, as I mentioned before,
the other classes would get a cut too.

hint... there will always be a lower class, but compared to what? So you make the future lower class equal to todays middle class then they will still be the lower class. If we compared our lower class to the world then they rank extremely well.

Of course, as always, I'm wholeheartedly opposed to welfare of any sorts.
It's your patriotic duty to work citizen!
(let's be serious, with the progress of technology,
working becomes easier and easier)

I agree 100%, but I also push it is not the government's job to decide HOW much I should earn by limiting what THEY think is enough with higher taxes etc.

If people have more money to spend, they will spend it,
this will stimulate the economy in a positive manner,
creating new jobs in both manufacturing and service sectors.
Couple this with protectionism and isolationism and you have
a self sufficient country whose sole goal should be to
further technology in such a manner as to colonize a new planet somewhere.
In the meantime, due to technological advancement,
we could begin mining space for resources, topple this with widespread recycling,
and we are now eliminating scarcity once and for all.
Almost forgot, one year mandatory military service for high school graduates,
someone has to fix all that crumbling infrastructure after all...

One of our biggest problems is our population size. What works well for a population of let’s say 50 mil can be extremely bad for a population of 300 mil. When we look at countries with populations greater than ours we see extreme poverty, extreme, so I can't say we are bad off at any level even when there is still a wide gap in earnings.

As I said before, when we feel the need to tax the rich, working classes or the poor more then maybe we just need to spend less money by having a smaller government.

smaller, it's okay it they fail banks would help also!!!

the healthcare system IS a ponzi scheme.....
if someone gets sick, really sick, there is no way that they can can pay what is now the cost of their care!! heck I read a story recently that some hospital was sueing some deceased 20 something year old's estate for think it was over nine million! yes she was really sick and think she was hopsitalized for somethink like five years, but that still works out to close to 2 million a year!!
bill gates could find himself in bankruptcy court if he got sick enough!!
it's a ponzi scheme and it has it's winners and it's losers....just like any ponzi scheme does. you pay for your health insurance premium year after year after year, but either because you don't get sick, or you get sick but never read that high deductable, well, you never see any benefit from the insurance company...while well, your money is being pooled with a ton of other people and some of them are racking up millions of dollars in medical bills that the pool is paying for!! and well, you are paying taxes, and some of that money was being pooled with millions of other people and some of those people are racking up millions of dollars in medical bills, while you don't see any benefit whatsoever, you make too much money, you don't qualify....

the ira's are another ponzi scheme, it will have it's winners, and it will have it's losers....
even if the economy was in good shape!!! it has the same problem as social security is gonna have, starting this year, people will start retiring, and well, less people will be starting to build up their retirement egg. and just like anyone 50 or younger is gonna be screwed when it comes to their social security if the republicans have their way, the younger boomers are gonna be screwed!!

prices can only go as high as the economy is able to endure them to be!!
we wouldn't have such high medical costs, if it wasn't for the ponzi schemes, it would be impossible for them to be that high!!!
and well, our economy wouldn't be churning as well as it is, without social security and ira's ect, giving the seniors the money they wouldn't have otherwise, to go out and spend!!!

instead of just abruptly ending any of these programs that is diverting the money all over the place, some care should be taken or else we could send our economy spiraling out of control and into chaos!!
if our goal is to have our citzens living without any gov't aide, or just temporary assistance for when things go to crap, well, it stands to reason that our goals should also include a way for every adult in this country to earn enough to meet their needs to at least exist, if they are working a full time job that can't be worked by high school students....
and any job that expeces a few years experience should be paying what is more in line with how much it would cost to supply the needs of the average family!!!
no, they shouldn't be all running out to get higher education, that's just another ponzi scheme and more than likely that bubble is gonna burstt sooner rather than later....
it's an unreasonable solution,
not all of us have the mental capacity to do this, and yet, there are still jobs that they can perform that society couldn't function as it does without!!
there's not enough jobs that actually require a college education, so many of those who get the education, still end up with jobs that aren't paying for the cost of their education!!
and well, there are many, many jobs, that society needs to be done if it's to function that just don't require a college education!!!
by encouraging so many to go and put themselves so deeply into debt for that education what we are in fact doing is making that college education the new norm, expected for every job in the country, jobs that once were done by single welfare moms are now requiring college education from it's applicants.....there isn't really any improvement in the service that is provided, but well, it's much more expensive now to provide the service!!
babysitting which well, at one time I could work a minimum wage job and pay for the childcare of three preschoolers, and still have a meaningful amount left over, well, can't do that anymore, hey those childcare workers need to have an education, and then well, we are gonna have to pay them more, so that we can pay them enough to at least make their student loan payment!!! what, that ain't reasonable, well, no worry!! well just take money from the taxpapyer, to pay for their childcare, and mom can work for that minimum wage!!
there are so many examples now in our economy of these ponzi schemes and all any of them are doing is driving up the cost of living for us all and making it even more likely that we are gonna run off a clift sooner or later!!

we can't cut them off, it would cause our economy to come to a grinding hault. we need to dewind them!! we need to gently force the cost of medical care down, the cost of housing, the cost of higher education, the cost of living!! if we don't we are either gonna drive up the cost of labor, or the cost of the ponzi schemes, which well, at the moment is where the true cost of all the crap is glaring us in the face!! and while we are doing that, we need to gently drive the wages of those other necessary for society to function but not apprecieated enough to care if the people who are doing them live or die jobs... and yes, the more better well to dos are gonna have to give up a little, but not to the gov't, for the ponzi schemes, but rather, at the business level....those big corporations who are subcontracting to the small businesses are gonna have to find the money to pay a little more for the work that is done!! they might be able to take that money from their profits and effect your stocks, or they might have to take it out of those million dollar salaries!! and those small business owners are gonna have to start paying their workers an adequate wage....
at the same time as this is happening, those who are earning money, through the delivery of the necessities of life, food, housing, medical care, energy, ect, are gonna have to cut into their profits, or their million dollar salaries, and start cutting the cost to their customers down till it meets the labor side of the equation.
tax cuts, tax increases, backing loans to cashiers to go out and get overpriced higher education so they can go back when they are finished to their old cashier job with it's low wage, creating jobs, boosting industries through incentives, bailouts, balanced budgets, no budgets, wars, well, ain't none of it is gonna solve the problem!! matter of fact, there is nothing that the gov't can do to solve the problem!! all they can do is create and boost the ponzi schemes that is feeding the problem!!
only the businesses and the individual can solve the problem!!
people need to get out there and work, take it upon themselves that they will only use those safety nets if it's absolutely necessary.....that's how most of the social programs were to be used, outside of social security, and I doubt the rich of previous generations would have accepted the social security! they had something they called honor!
and well, the business, if they don't like their taxes so high, if they don't like the welfare, the medicaid, gee, go online, find out what the income guidelines for those programs are, pay your employees a little more!! hey, you just knocked a few people off those programs you hate so much!! colleges don't have to charge the maximum tuition rate the gov't sets on their student loans ya know, landlords don't have to set their rent to the maximum amount hud will pay, doctor's don't have to set their charges to what medicaid and insurance companies are willing to pay!! neither do child care centers!! those ceos making millions in salaries and bonuses could just turn around and say hey, I really don't need that much, can live find on half of it, how about we kind of slip up the rest evenly among the lower paid workers?? the problem isn't within the gov't, so how can they fix it??
the problem is that we, as a society, haven't been able to recognize the value of the people holding jobs that we all take for granted!! oh, ya, on an individual level, the nice cashier at the store, the server at the resturant, we can show them a little aprreciation, we can "like" them, and well, I imagine that when you get on a plane you are hoping that the person who cut those gaskets were happy enough to at least be paying attention to the job ( I was paying attention by the way), but well, but well, if that cashier, that server in the resturant was in another town in another state, and you didn't know them, ,many of your could care less if their medical care was taken care of, or they had food on the table, or a roof over your head....
I know this for a fact, since I was the gasket cutter, the screen printer, and I had quite a few chats with ya while I went through some pretty tough times!!
the problem isn't in the gov't, the problem is in our hearts!! and if the gov't did default, if the markets sank like rocks to the bottom of the sea, if our credit rating was lowered to the lowest level!! well, what can I say, there seems to be an unwritten law, unknown, inrecognized law in action in the universe...
basicallly it boils down to this, God occasionallly looks upon us and well, ,kind of gives us the treatment that we have given the least among us!!

reply to post by Xtrozero


Keep in mind that if government controls electricity, oil, fresh water, precious metals,
etc, it can form a very big profit, especially if it exports certain renewable resources.
A country that can export en masse cheap carbon based meta-materials would be a rich one indeed.
Obviously you can't rely on government's bureaucratic good will on this,
there needs to be accountability and transparency, if there isn't you end up with Soviet style communism.
A civilian anti-corruption bureau comes to mind, defended by a well equipped militia.
People should vote on leaders, not political parties.
People should vote on laws, not obey laws they never agreed to follow.
Decentralization, give power back to states, cities and regions.

In practice you end up getting checks in the mail called tax returns,
same idea, just more often.
I believe it's called social credit, check out Switzerland.

I agree, the lowest class at that point would be middle class,
keep in mind there is a difference between someone who can
afford food, shelter and ascertain a future for his/her children,
along with part taking in a consumerist economy (which creates jobs by the way),
as opposed to someone whose late on rent all the time because
their jobs don't pay enough. I know a ton of guys working a real job
AND selling drugs on the side just to pay the bills.
This isn't normal, not at all.


There needs to be an income cap of some sorts,
if there isn't you end up with a serious gap between rich and poor,
after a while you're gonna hoard all that cash and it won't
flow through the economy anymore, so what's the alternative?
Printing cash out of thin air and inflating the economy?
Of course, I'd be generous, a few million wouldn't hurt as a cap.

Population growth is the prime motivator for space exploration
and exploitation.