LP = Liberal Progressive, WRD = Wealth Re Distribution.
I know true socialism is government ownership of the means of production and NO private property.
I also know that communism is socialism with a gun to your head (meaning you are in prison, you can’t leave the country)
Marx’s most well known quote is. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Which means the government takes 100% of what you are able to produce and then gives you back what you need (according to them). What they don’t say is they keep the rest. Its a system of rewarding the ones without the energy, talent, or drive because they have the same needs as the ones with the drive energy and talent. This is called Wealth Redistribution and its the Liberal Progressives solution to all economic problems. Its why we have failed Education system the Teachers Unions make sure the good teachers do not get rewarded while the bad teachers get promoted at the same rate as the good ones.
Why do LP continue to believe this WRD policies will work when they continue to fail every time they have been tried? If you deny LP only economic policy tool is WRD then give me an example otherwise. Remember, subsidies, regulations on production not placed equally on all (tax breaks to solar energy while preventing oil drilling increases the cost of oil while decreasing the cost to solar). Progressive tax rates is another example of WRD.
Seriously can you name one, or if you can’t and you are a LP or Socialist in hiding, why are you? What can’t you see the obvious flaws in your approach? Why can’t you name a socialist country that hasn’t either become totalitarian, bankrupted, or reformed to become less redistributive? If you haven’t noticed most of Europe is in the process of being less redistributive as is the USA, that in a nut shell is what the Tea Party is all about. Why are you fighting common sense? Help us understand please?
Many LP’s claim there are no NO WRD levers to improve the economy. This is not true, remember Reagan famous scary quote, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”. Its the reason conservatives are called conservatives. Our solutions are to get rid of the LP solutions that were put in place that provided the decisiveness for the economy to work properly. Here is a list:
- Make all public unions illegal
- Sales tax or Flat % tax.
- minimize regulation
- outlaw crony capitalism (giving special tax incentives to some while charging higher taxes to others sin taxes are a good example)
- Welfare should be provided at the state, local, and individual level not the federal level where it is the most costly and least effective.
These conservative solutions all attack LP WRD destructive policies already in place. Here is a nice summation of the Conservative approach.
“My dream has always been to make the poor richer, not to make the rich poorer. And, in fact, it is an added bonus if the rich get richer while the poor get richer, as well. My favorite quote on this subject is from President John F. Kennedy who said: “No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and every American is made better off whenever any one of us is made better off. A rising tide raises all boats.””
Answer quickly someone will get this question deleted as a Rant rather than a well structured and thought out question.
Sfancik – Thank you so much for a reasonable and well thought out answer. I would give you 5 thumbs up if I could. Where we disagree is on the cause and the effect of policies and the economics itself. But NOT on where we both would like to end up.
1 I can agree successfully that the effect of a flat tax helps the poor more than a progressive tax. In short I could show you if time permitted that the additional funds collected from the middle class and wealthy class sent to the government used by the bureaucracy and then a small portion given to the poor and create a disincentive for the poor to work is a less effective way to help the poor. If the money stays with the rich they would use it to buy luxury goods made by the poor and invest to create more jobs for the poor with no middle man (the gov) jumping in to waste the money
2.I would say as you guessed we are OVER regulated. Where we disagree is the housing boom was caused by government regulation not lack there of. It wa
It was the gov was forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them by insuring them and then covering the loss when they went bad. The solution is to get the gov out of the banking business.
3. Your third point relates back to the first two. I would say the reason the poor are getting poorer, is do to LP policies as I have described above for the reasons I pointed out. But I love the fact that you are logical and reasonable two qualities rarely found in an LP. My guess is you will not remain one for too much longer.
Sfancik – Again we agree on the end goal, which I find encouraging. What we disagree on is the process, what works and what doesn’t. Its hard for either of us to make our case in this format, but I’m confident I could show you the facts that would prove you wrong. Comments on your comments. Redistribution of wealth from the productive class to the unproductive class has never worked so I’m not sure were you are getting your data on this. All studies have show that the best way to help the poor and the middle class is to remove the barriers to advance from one level to the other. Redistribution puts barriers in place and causes the Rich to get richer and the poor to get more poor and more dependent on the government. We have 50 years of history to prove that is what happens. We do have one bright spot, when Reagan leveled the tax rates to be less progressive we had a huge growth and massive numbers of people moving from the lower class to the middle class and middle class to the
upper class. This also happened after the Kennedy tax cuts.
As for the home bubble. We are agree on the things that happened but disagree on what caused it. Simple put, there was a political movement by both parties to increase home ownership. Banks refused to lend to people who couldn’t afford to pay the money back. They were accused of racism by the administration (Carter, Clinton, Bush) it started that long ago. The Dems primarily got Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae involved to insure the loans. Then Fanny didn’t want to set on the loans so with the government help they negotiated a deal with AIG to insure and package the bad loans with the good loans. Well that still wasn’t enough so then the gov encouraged the creations of derivatives to protect the investors. Then when the house of cards folded, the government came in and bailed out AIG and the banks. If Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac never existed the banks never would have given the loans to people who can afford it. They are still doing i
t. The gov is still not doing anything to stop Fanny Mae or Mac. Nothing has changed. We need the gov out and provide no bailouts for bad loans, then the market will take care of itself.
More Pages:
- Solar Producer: Are You Ready To Be Raped By Congress? (5/10/2012)
- Solar Turbines: Government Policy Concerning Wind Turbines And Birds? (8/20/2011)
- Solar Producer: Does Anyone Want To Volunteer To Pay $5,000 Extra In Taxes This Year? (5/19/2012)
- Solar Producer: What Do You Think Of This Economic Plan? (5/13/2012)
- Please!Tell me why solar energy is considered to be the poor-man’s choice in electricity in Morocco?
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
No I cant. They are the useful idiots of the New World Order. The Rothschilds and Soros love them.
Are those crickets I hear? They’re really thinking hard!
Well, it’s difficult to answer such a well-thought out question “quickly” but I will attempt to do so, and to help you understand the position of someone who considers themselves a “liberal progressive” although I’ll preface my answer by admitting that I think I do have some conservative and moderate viewpoints on issues as well, and think the labels we employ to identify each other, including “tea party” tend to stereotype and misrepresent many americans who simply strive to consider and forward reasonable ideas and explanations regarding our government and economy.
First, I don’t claim that I am not “socialist”, but I do believe a degree of “socialism” is necessary in a capitalist government and is present in the platforms of both conservatives and liberals. Wealth Redistribution (WR, as I abbreviate it) has occurred as a result of both idealogies/parties policies and I would simply state that it has been inappropriately over the past twenty to thirty years redistributed to a small percentage of very wealthy individuals and corporations to the detriment of the majority of the citizens of this country and the economy.
I think conservatives have fair arguments to make with regard to particular aspects of the tax code that on their face are inadequate and/or unfair, however I believe a flat tax or sales tax solution unfairly burdens those families who must utilize the majority of their budget to “live” day to day, ie; the middle class and below. It makes common sense to me that those who benefit the most from our political system which favors so greatly the “already powerful” should pay a greater percentage to maintain that system.
With regard to regulation I would say that it’s minimization was one of the primary reasons for our current economic condition and led directly to the bailouts which I was under the impression most individuals identifying themselves as tea partiers were vehemently against. Conglomerating banks and insurance companies, allowing credit speculation and minimizing oversight on the credit rating system was undeniably a factor in the collapse of the banks and financial services companies. Who, I might point out, then had WR to them in fantastic amounts. Welfare on a grander scale then I think was imagined when conservatives (and some democrats) pushed this deregulation in the late 90′s.
Kennedy’s quote I think is inspirational but I think it’s a mistake to assume that the only tide that affects that result is tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation. I think the experience of the past twenty odd years has taught us that particular tide tends to leave the majority of americans underwater. Perhaps a tide designed to benefit the 90% of americans who don’t enjoy million dollar salaries would also raise the prospects and prosperity of the already fabulously wealthy.
That’s my take on common sense. Hope I was fast enough.
EDIT: Thank you for the acknowledgment. If one thumbs up is all I can get, it will have to suffice. Re: Your additional points:
1. It seems like your argument is more with government efficiency, no one appreciates waste and that should always be the focus of progressive improvement, but I would argue that a bigger disincentive for the poor to work is when an 80 hour work week does not achieve a living wage or when the gap between the rich and the middle/lower classes is so great there is very little opportunity to bridge that gap. I don’t see a lot of evidence out there supporting the argument that these tax cuts have resulted in job creation. I feel the economy would have been better served leaving taxes on the rich where they were and cutting taxes for the poor and middle class more.
2. I think if you believe that the government was forcing banks to make risky loans then you might believe as you do, that deregulation is positive. I don’t think that was the case at all though. I think the banks sought risky loans because deregulation allowed them to package and sell the loans, have them rated inappropriately as solid risks and even make money on their failure by way of speculative markets. The banks/finance companies gambled and lost and the tax payers picked up the tab. Placing the blame at the foot of the mortgage holder I think is a bit self-righteous given that every lender/financial analyst up to Greenspan himself was telling folks to borrow against the future value of their property. It was basically a ponzi scheme, that would have been impossible absent deregulation, and when it fell apart the victims got foreclosed on and the criminals got billion dollar bailouts. Get government back into banking…too big to fail shouldn’t be the avenue to welfare in this country.