Are today's mainstream politicians to the right or left of FDR's template?

[maycocksean]

BVS, why you gotta slap the olive leaf out of the man's hand? I'm not saying you should agree with him, but he seems to be trying to have a civil discussion. Why not accept that?

 

[BVS]

If the government leaves everyone in "starving, naked servitude" as you so quaintly put it, by butting out, it is implied that the government is needed to supply these things. I'm tired of this debate though, because you just want to argue.

This is incorrect on all counts.

This is what adults do, they discuss.

 

[BVS]

BVS, why you gotta slap the olive leaf out of the man's hand? I'm not saying you should agree with him, but he seems to be trying to have a civil discussion. Why not accept that?

How was I not civil?

 

[Caleb8844]

I'd love to discuss, but what you're doing is NOT what adults do. What you're doing is belittling and insulting me at every chance you get, regardless of how civil I try to be. But if you want to do that, that's cool but I'm done trying to debate now.

 

[maycocksean]

How was I not civil?

Perhaps uncivil isn't the right word. . .just very hostile. But, the discussion is between you two. Perhaps I shouldn't have butted in. I'm not a mod after all, so what business is it of mine?

Carry on.

(That is, if you're sparring partner agrees to carry on. . .)

 

[BVS]

Ok I re-read some of my posts and maybe I coupled my frustration with the unwilling to compromise children in DC along with you. My apologies. Your posts just seemed to start twisting a bit too much...

 

[Caleb8844]

No hard feelings, bro, we're good Sorry if I made you feel like I was twisting your words, I promise I really wasn't trying to

 

[BVS]

No hard feelings

 

[financeguy]

Those right$ are nice but in order to achieve them you need to pay for them via taxation of other profitable enterprises and individuals. If an economic downturn occurs it means you can't pay for the particular right or it has to be reduced to some level recipients don't like it makes that right hard to be inalienable. Maybe the taxpayers should have a right that their money is spent properly and that budgets have to be balanced. If taxes had to go up more often (and sooner) instead of relying on borrowing the public would be more skeptical of benefit increases.

Abolishing the military-industrial complex could make very convincing inroads into that deficit and avoid the need to raise taxes on the hard-pressed working and middle classes.

Such tax increases that are necessary should be concentrated on the upper classes, Wall Street leaches, hospital consultants (the US's are the highest paid in the world, but the health service is ranked only 30th or so) and other wealthy persons and corporations. If compliance is an issue, well, I'm sure there is space left in Gitmo. Why not give the Fed powers to invoke anti-terrorist legislation against wealthy tax evaders, that would help make inroads into the gap.

And, yes, I am being serious.

 

[purpleoscar]

Abolishing the military-industrial complex could make very convincing inroads into that deficit and avoid the need to raise taxes on the hard-pressed working and middle classes.

Such tax increases that are necessary should be concentrated on the upper classes, Wall Street leaches, hospital consultants (the US's are the highest paid in the world, but the health service is ranked only 30th or so) and other wealthy persons and corporations. If compliance is an issue, well, I'm sure there is space left in Gitmo. Why not give the Fed powers to invoke anti-terrorist legislation against wealthy tax evaders, that would help make inroads into the gap.

And, yes, I am being serious.

Abolishing the military industrial complex only makes sense if the coddled Europeans pick up the military slack and spend less on social programs. Seriously, they get military welfare from the U.S. If everyone abolished the military we would soon be taken over by dictatorships so that's not a sane option.

Secondly, you can't forcefully hire people. I'm okay with having regulations to help shareholders control the board of directors more but simply increasing taxes on the rich won't get enough money to pay for what the government is spending. Not even close.

‪EAT THE RICH!‬‏ - YouTube

Everytime governments say they should tax the rich they always find a way to tax the much more numerous middle classes. If there aren't enough spending cuts in the next few years everyone will have to have their taxes raised, and not just the rich. They'll just leave, fire, implement a hiring freeze or some combination of all in response to increased taxes. That's why socialist countries often have a slower unemployment cycle (but the culture is okay with it). Also more give up looking for work in Europe and rely on government or parents/spouses.

People need to look at how economic growth works in reality and stop using the finite pie example of wealth distribution. Slicing up a pie that is static or shrinking is not as good as increasing the size of the pie.

Having excess bonuses is definitely a sticking point with me and I'm not sure what regulations could be put in place to prevent it but something has to be done to increase the competition. I'm all for whilstle-blowing on tax evaders.

The best solution for the U.S. now is low taxes, low government spending, more free-trade, and a sound monetary policy that doesn't punish savers. If this isn't done no amount of taxing companies and wealthy individuals will be able to narrow the deficit enough. Even if and when the budget gets balanced there could be another recession causing more deficits so it will make sense to have a plan to pay down the overall debt further. If there's another recession there won't be any Keynesian cushion to rely on.

 

[LPU2]

during Barack Obama's first YEAR: +9%. Extrapolating that for his full term (which is, admittedly, not an extremely accurate practice) would have him increasing the debt percentage by 36%, which is completely unprecedented.

*L* Nice try. Yeah, if the United States, in an attempt to dig ourselves out of recession, requires an 800 Billion dollar stimulus every year Obama is in office, then yeah, you're absolutely right, he would increase debt percentage by a whopping 36%. COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED!

 

[Canadiens1131]

Abolishing the military industrial complex only makes sense if the coddled Europeans pick up the military slack and spend less on social programs. Seriously, they get military welfare from the U.S. If everyone abolished the military we would soon be taken over by dictatorships so that's not a sane option.

Oh, make no mistake the U.S. is indeed propping up NATO.

That said, you have stuck yourself into a chicken-and-egg dilemma there. The U.S. has made a business out of selling/giving arms to regimes it thinks will allow it to meddle in and mould regional politics around the world. It then ends up having to fight its own assets down the line when they lose the bet on a foreign regime staying in power.

Smaller, more effective forces, limited in size by law against the intelligence community's data on other militaries. That is what will never happen with the U.S military because your local congressman wants a new hovertank factory for his congressional district.

You see it as propping up other nations geopolitically, but other see it as the U.S. having an addiction to getting into long, drawn-out quagmires. Don't kid yourself: Western intervention in Libya has nothing to do with civilian lives, only oil.

The best solution for the U.S. now is low taxes, low government spending, more free-trade

Yeah, good luck with more free-trade with less government spending to re-train workers for information-based jobs, bud. That U.S. manufacturing base sure is devastated after NAFTA allowed all those jobs to cross the border to Mexico. Are we just going to write off anyone as a society who used to work on a production line?

 

[purpleoscar]

Oh, make no mistake the U.S. is indeed propping up NATO.

That said, you have stuck yourself into a chicken-and-egg dilemma there. The U.S. has made a business out of selling/giving arms to regimes it thinks will allow it to meddle in and mould regional politics around the world. It then ends up having to fight its own assets down the line when they lose the bet on a foreign regime staying in power.

Smaller, more effective forces, limited in size by law against the intelligence community's data on other militaries. That is what will never happen with the U.S military because your local congressman wants a new hovertank factory for his congressional district.

You see it as propping up other nations geopolitically, but other see it as the U.S. having an addiction to getting into long, drawn-out quagmires. Don't kid yourself: Western intervention in Libya has nothing to do with civilian lives, only oil.
Yeah, good luck with more free-trade with less government spending to re-train workers for information-based jobs, bud. That U.S. manufacturing base sure is devastated after NAFTA allowed all those jobs to cross the border to Mexico. Are we just going to write off anyone as a society who used to work on a production line?

The U.S. needs to compete more and not just rely on service and tech jobs. Not everyone is going to be computer geek. There's plenty of money in education and more money doesn't necessarily mean better results especially if it only goes into current salaries. That would be inflation. The U.S. needs to make tangible products and that won't happen with higher corporate taxes.

I would love for the U.S. to drawdown expenses if Europe starts taking care of their own space but that doesn't appear to be a popular idea for Europeans so yes the U.S. is kind of stuck with the military bill. Theres room for cutting waste in the DOD for sure and all departments are going to have to have a haircut to get the budget balanced.